Re: Many worlds theory of immortality

From: Jesse Mazer <lasermazer.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 20:05:49 -0400

aet.radal ssg wrote:

>You're assuming that Einstein came up with those ideas through
>brainstorming.

To me, "brainstorming" just means any creative attempt to come up with new
tentative speculations about solutions to a problem. Since Einstein's ideas
cannot possibly have been anything but tentative and speculative before the
theory of general relativity was worked out, then of course he came up with
them through brainstorming. How else would he have come up with them,
logical deductions from a set of axioms whose truth was totally certain?
Divine revelation?

>You're the one that >called the ideas discussed here often as
>"half-formed".

Yes, and I would define any idea that has not been made into a fully-worked
out, complete theory as "half-formed". Thus, until Einstein worked out the
full tensor equations of general relativity, his ideas were half-formed, by
definition. Perhaps you woud define the term "half-formed" differently, but
that's all I meant by that.

>The problem I used to have (I'm too busy to >even give darn anymore) is
>when ideas are put out that >don't seem to any thought behind them, prior
>to being offered.

What if the person has thought about them, but doesn't know themselves
whether they're any good, and wants feedback from others? Are you suggesting
that before making any proposal, we should always feel 100% certain in our
own minds about whether the proposal is correct or not?

>Like my still unanswered question to Saibal about how people who aren't
>"really" there but exist in >Nash's head can still be considered real in
>"our universe".

Maybe he didn't know the answer himself--is that a bad thing? Anyway, one
could argue that simulations in someone's brain are just as real as
simulations on a computer--do you think A.I. shouldn't be considered real
beings in our universe? Of course, I don't think the "simulations" of
characters in a schizophrenic mind or in a dream are really being simulated
at anything like the same level of detail as a genuine A.I. would be.

>That's what I'm talking about. That's a fully formed idea with absolutely
>no basis in the objective world >that was just put out there like it meant
>something, when in fact it's ridiculous.

Whatever gave you the idea that it was a "fully formed idea"? Do you think
Saibal believed he had a complete theory of how the brain of a schizophrenic
simulates the imaginary characters he interacts with, for example?

Jesse
Received on Thu May 26 2005 - 20:08:58 PDT