Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

From: George Levy <glevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:07:53 -0700

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> I happen to be a believer in the observer-moment as fundamental, and
> the only thing one can be sure of from the first person perspective.
> "I think, therefore I am" is taking it too far in deducing the
> existence of an observer; "I think, therefore there is a thought" is
> all that I can be absolutely certain of.


Hi Stathis,

I also believe that the observer moment is fundamental, but I don't
think there is anything wrong with "I think therefore I am" as long as
this statement is taken as a definition of "being" rather than as an
explanation: Look at it as "I think, this means 'I am.' "

I you accept that the observer-moment is fundamental, and nothing else
is, then "being" cannot be defined using any physical substrate since,
at this point of the argument, physics has not been defined yet. You are
left only with a definition of "being:" To be is to think. To paraphrase
Erdos, "To be is to do math." ;-)

George
Received on Tue May 10 2005 - 16:14:57 PDT