From: CyTG (cytg.net@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Mar 16 2008 - 05:57:55 MDT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Many_worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_physics
'
Noone would be your own closer duplicate than your closest multiverse
cousin.
I suppose you could merge with him.
That being done, your cousins cousin would not be a far fetch from there.
So on and so on.
Until you reach maximum intellectual entropy ? The total collective
consciousness of an intellectual state beginning at a given point in time?
The concept just makes next to little sense to me .. I mean, to what end ?
You'd have to have a fundamental, instinctive, understanding of at least the
4 dimensions and problary qm's to cope with this sort of multi-awareness...
and again, to what end ??
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 5:36 AM, Mike Dougherty <msd001@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin@rawbw.com> wrote:
> > Well, could you have snipped a lot of the foregoing I wonder?
> > In addition to your ghastly HTML, I'm having some trouble here
> > knowing what we've agreed to and what we haven't, and, alas,
> > have not been snipping very conscientiously myself.
> >
> > P.S. Sorry, as I explained, for not snipping more. It will be a miracle
> > if anyone bothers reading this whole thing except you and me.
>
> Sorry about the html, I thought I had turned that off in gmail. It
> probably also explains why so few of my posts get responses. Thanks
> for the reminder.
>
> I think we've agreed to many things. That's my seriously snipped summary.
> :)
>
> I'm happy to clear the slate and focus on this:
>
> I understand there may be value in retaining atomic details of every
> transaction. The transaction record may be later mined for further
> patterns that were not observed from an initial investigation.
>
> I offer this scenario: Your wife asks how your day was. You say, "It
> was fine" (because you really don't care to relive your day to provide
> the details) You then realize that what she was really asking was,
> "Are you going to ask me about MY day" so you reciprocate with, "And
> how was your day?" Now tell me, what amount of data do you record
> from the next 20 minutes of downloading she attempts to convey? I
> believe you would in-principle say that you have recorded every nuance
> of that 20 minutes. You might honestly say that you absorbed the
> relevant bits and could tell me the "gist" of it were I to ask you.
> She probably would say you weren't paying attention at all. OK, I
> don't know if you have a wife or are a good listener, etc. It's
> contrived in 2nd person so you might more easily identify with it.
>
> If the physical universe real-time has an effectively unlimited
> resolution and bandwidth (granted: a debatable assumption) You face
> death of your human body. You can be uploaded with the following
> limitation on technology. The bandwidth to memory is a fixed constant
> (let's say due to electromagnetic storage constraints). However, the
> bandwidth bringing data into your 'brain' can exceed the bandwidth to
> memory by several orders of magnitude (it's 100% optical)
>
> Do you tune your input rate down in order to accurately "remember"
> everything you perceive?
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT