Re: copy method important?

From: <daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:21:37 -0400

Stathis wrote:
>Scouring the universe to find an exact copy of RM's favourite marble may seem a very inefficient method of duplication, but when it comes to conscious observers in search of a successor OM, the obvious but nonetheless amazing fact is that nobody needs to search or somehow bring the the observer and the OM together: if the successor OM exists anywhere in the plenitude, then the mere fact of its existence means that the observer's consciousness will continue.

 
What feature of the universe(s) causes you to be able to say that the dead OM continues to be conscious rather than continues to be dead? Aren't there just as many universes (or more?) or future moments in this universe, where there is no conscious OM? It seems like it's a wash (unknown) when it comes to being able to claim the existence of immortality or not, based on that type of argument.
 
Tom Caylor
 
Received on Mon Jun 20 2005 - 12:43:02 PDT