Re: When is this?

by John Mikes :: Rate this Message:

David,

(after having missed your posts for a long time...)

I wonder if my response will appear on the list, because lately some did not (maybe I have mailing-list troubles, maybe some screener finds my ideas not worthy) so with good hopes:

I had long standing discussions in the early 90s on some (more psych/philosophy oriented) lists about ob/sub-jective. [There even was an opinion saying "subj" is related to a (any) "SUBJECT" (=topic) while "obj." would be object-oriented(?).] My position was (and I made it stick after almost 2 years of fierce discussions) that what is usually called and valued, as:

objective reality(!) (in the sense of aiming at something tangible - even only ideationally tangible) is our own subjective virtuality

(as included into MY OWN mindset) of the mind-adjusted explanation of an information (phenomenon? relation?) that reached us. You may imagine the initial contradictory burst that was arisen initially. I did not give up, the opponents ran out of argumentation.

OMs I can translate into my vocabulary, but Q-immortality and teleport ideas I cannot, I ask what is the factor effecting (doing) all that? Even: initiating them? I don't except 'ideational' self-moving of physically termed items. Nor 'physicality' in any processes outside our "physical" box.

What I am stratled by is the (higher? or) "lower" measures of OM. I use such distinctions in a context-related meaning and the context is our (physical? i.e. figmentous) worldview. Your setup seems to be "above"(<G>) such. (=Outside this box).

With 'immortality' I connect our thinking in time, the ordinating relation for this universe and our thinking within, (for)'ever' is not a timely term, so "eternity" may be atemporal. - Q or not.

Regards

John Mikes

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Nyman <david.nyman@...> wrote:

Forgive me in advance if this has been covered adequately before in
the list, but the following occurs to me with respect to 'Bostrom'
style assessments of where I should expect my 'current' OM to be
situated with respect to the total population of OMs in which I exist.

Presumably, I should expect that my current awareness of my 'life-
stage' will be characteristic of those OMs with the highest
'measure' (a concept upon which I think I have at least a vague grasp
in this context). Ostensibly, taking into account the various points
at which I die off, one would expect that the highest such measure
would be characteristic of a later life-stage rather than an earlier,
taken across all branches in which I exist. Indeed, I don't recall
ever having been any older!

However, assuming the co-existence of all OMs (i.e. where 'time
doesn't actually 'unfold'), should I expect ever to find myself
conscious of an OM of lower measure? What does this say about my
ostensibly conscious past experiences (i.e. those putatively
representing OMs of lower measure)? Should I conclude that 'from here
on' in terms of life-stage my survivors are on average becoming rarer
and that consequently on the basis of measure I shouldn't expect to
experience getting any older? In this case, does it further imply
that the experience of quantum immortality would make sense only in
terms of some sort of 'real' time-line along which I could expect to
actually experience an extended 'tail' of surviving conscious moments
regardless of their measure?

I'm definitely confused.

David

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

« Return to Thread: When is this?