X-Message-Number: 16695 Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 00:45:37 +0000 () From: Louis Epstein <> Subject: Replies to CryoNet #16663 - #16671 Schtroumpfs are nothing compared to God. On 25 Jun 2001, CryoNet wrote: > Message #16663 Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 08:55:46 -0700 > From: Lee Corbin <> > > Bill Walker writes > > >Well of course we're probably all living in a simulation. > >Every inhabited universe has zillions of simulations with > >only one "real" level, so the odds are huge that you're in > >a simulation. And the simulations have simulations in them, > >so you're probably ten levels down. > > There are two reasons that this should be regarded as > incorrect. First, if you are living in a simulation of > the real 21st century Earth, then it is semantically > correct to realize that the word "this" has two equally > valid referents: the original Earth and the simulation. > Therefore, this is just as much the original as the > simulation. Absolute nonsense.Identity encompasses uniqueness,copies of something are identical TO each other but they are NOT each other.If we each buy a copy of a newspaper,and I burn mine,I have not burned yours,nor is either of our copies the one someone else has. The fallacy is in assuming the inevitable existence of simulations that might not even be possible...not in simulations being (or even being able to be) the exact thing they are simulating. > Our best physical theories suggest that the visible universe > is not all that there is, and in fact we have no reason to > suppose at the present time that only finitely many stars > exist. But if the number of stars is infinite, then it > follows by the ergodic hypothesis, that an Earth arbitrarily > close to this exists elsewhere---infinitely many, in fact. Every one of them not being any of the others,because it is itself. Their resemblance to each other is irrelevant. > Also, the Many Worlds Interpretation is every year gaining > further adherants, and will probably soon be held by a majority > of physicists, if it isn't already. As the failings of the > Copenhagen Interpretation become more and more apparent, > so the logic and simplicity of MWI become more evident. But > if you believe the MWI, then you also have to reckon that > the word "this" has referents in many universes, so that the > phrase "this is a simulation" is both true and false, since > the you making this statement resides in the original Earth > as well as in the simulation. Since the 1970s I have held to what I call the "Time Wave Theory",which boils down to "Many Worlds" in more dimensions,among other things.I think that every possible combination of atomic particles,physical laws,etc. exists at every stage from Big Bang onwards.So we can travel to (if we can find a way to escape our own) time waves that are travelling through our own past,alternate pasts,possible futures of our own,or possible futures of alternate pasts/presents. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Message #16665 Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:10:49 -0700 > Subject: Facts About World War II > > > >Don't forget that Japanese Americans were put in the concentration > >camps in the USA during WWII, while their sons were fighting > >Japan and Hitler. Isn't this a paradox? > > It was absolutely necessary! Military authorities estimated > that perhaps as much as five percent of the Japanese-American > population would have welcomed a Japanese invasion of the > west coast. You know twenty people, and one of them is probably your enemy... so you MUST lock up all twenty? I'm not buying. > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Message #16666 Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 14:57:51 -0400 > From: <> > > Hi Louis, > > The suspension fee comes from the proceeds of the insurance that Rudi > Hoffman () could write for about $1000 per year. OK...I'm not clear on how all forms of insurance work.I've seen charts prepared that show the value building over time,and I'm not assuming that the full benefit would be paid if I died right after I started. > Likewise i thought that what the Mikes and Kennita and others wrote > recently was powerful, moving, and above all, clear, but maybe not. > Unfortunately, i can't put their arguments any better, or i would. Well,when we work from different assumptions,a "clear" argument seems "clearly mistaken" to the opposite side. > dan > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Message #16670 Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 14:56:35 -0500 > From: david pizer <> > > There were several comments to my thought experiment, but no once could > answer the question telling how a person could ever know if his life was real? > > >From: Lee Corbin <> > > >Second, I fear that your phrasing of the question "what does an immortal > >do?" carries the subtle implication that the immortal in question has > >reached a point of stasis. This is very common among all us millenarianists, > >because "Later" is always idealized as a Wonderful (but static) condition. > >But perhaps a static equilibrium never obtains; one very well may > >be engaged in revolutionary growth at all future times. > > If one has every possible virtual possession and every desire satisfied, > how is that not virtually static? Is stasis necessarily boring? "It would be boring!" is a standard anti-immortalist,anti-perfectionist shibboleth designed to make us accept ourselves as flawed and mortal...it appears time and again in stories where those who aspire to immortality or perfection are left sadder and wiser. I think different temperaments will greet potential situations differently. For some,stasis is the desired paradise. And are you satisfying all your desires simultaneously?What of rotating things in turn?Do you never re-read books? Won't you find things you won't get tired of? > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Message #16671 From: "john grigg" <> > > Due to the urge to be open about myself, and also out of ignorance of how > many lists are tied to search engines; I used my online moniker and real > name when I posted. This of course made things easily found out about my > cryonics and transhumanistic interests. Personally,I never feel as comfortable with those who hide behind aliases as with those who do not place me at a privacy disadvantage.I have other emails I use for specialized interests,"adult" or not,but it is better to honor honesty than paranoia.And I am always either honest or silent! > A few years ago I met a gorgeous, gutsy, and intelligent Mormon female from > Australia who could be described as my "dream girl." For awhile things were > incredibly romantic between us but despite my best efforts, she visited Utah > instead of Alaska when she came to the states. I was a poor college student > at the time(still poor though, lol) and felt she was out of my league, so I > never went down to see her though I felt extremely tortured about the whole > thing. Had she asked you to come see her? > Within a few weeks there she met a guy who she later married. I called her > a week before the wedding and she complained about all the preparations > while I felt anguish about what she was about to do. Becky wanted me to > call her later on but I never did. The faint-heart-and-fair-lady situation. I certainly understand...for some of us, the most reasonable aspiration seems to be to not be a pest to those we adore, and who do not adore us back.At least we can let them remember us as other than irritants,though if we are too forward we lose that.While they go off with others who are more forward,and by our standards less deserving of them. > We did do a few brief email exchanges after the marriage and the > announcement of her pregnancy. But, she never told me about the birth of > the child. I wonder sometimes if she cut me off as 'old baggage' or if a > search engine revealed a side to her she did not like. I have tried > repeatedly to get a reply from her with no success. Perhaps her husband is jealous of you, and she honors his wish that she not respond? But certainly,a "please stop writing" is much easier to deal with than simple silence. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16695