X-Message-Number: 25413
From: 
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 10:44:24 EST
Subject: necessity & sufficiency

Thomas Donaldson writes in part:
 

Basically it seems to me that if we assume that our QE is a  physical
entity in the broadest meaning of that phrase, then someday means  
will be developed to say whether or not one QE is a continuation
of  another. 
 
I certainly don't claim that my criterion of survival is necessary--only  
that it is sufficient, with very little doubt. We know this already, without  
future technology.
 
Again-- you survive (at least in part) if there is  overlap--in matter, 
space, and time--between you and your early successors or  continuers. 
 
To deny this, it seems to me, would be to deny that you  survive from day to 
day in the ordinary course of events. In other  words, such conjectures as the 
possible discontinuities in time  itself are irrelevant for practical 

purposes. If we survive at all, we survive  by my criterion. It is also 
possible, but 
I think unlikely, that  other criteria may eventually come to light.
 
Robert Ettinger






 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25413