RE: many worlds theory of immortality

From: Jonathan Colvin <jcolvin.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 17:39:16 -0700

JC: >>That's a good question. I can think of a chess position that is
>>a-priori illegal. But our macroscopic world is so complex it is far
>>from obvious what is allowed and what is forbidden.
>
>Jesse Mazer: So what if some chess position is illegal? They are only
>illegal according to the rules of chess, but the point of the
>"all logically possible worlds exist" idea is not just that
>all possible worlds consistent with a given set of rules (such
>as our universe's laws of physics) exist, but that all
>possible worlds consistent with all logically possible *rules*
>exist. So the only configurations that would be forbidden
>would be logically impossible ones like "square A4 both does
>and does not contain a pawn".

Sure. But chess was just an analogy using one particular FS (part of set
theory). But suppose I posit a world that consists of an arbitrary sequence
of propositions X>Y>Z. Is it necessarily the case that for *any* arbitrary
set of propositions, we can identify a FS that these propositions of
theories of? When does a formal system stop being formal, and become simply
arbitrary? Here I am out of my depth. Anyone?

Jonathan Colvin
Received on Sun Apr 17 2005 - 20:50:11 PDT