User talk:John Eastmond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 13:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] interesting twist

An interesting twist to the "many worlds" style of argument is that we are immortal. The logic is that their being many potential outcomes in every situation, each branching ouyt to other possible worlds, our consciousness will always go on in the world where we survive. For example, if we put a gun to our head and pull the trigger, we clearly won'tr percieve ourself to die, but rrather our consciousness will continue in a world where the gun jams, or we survive the injury, etc.. There is a particularly insane experiment involving a cat and a box w a lethal dose of radiation in it, but I don't have a link at the moment. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard of the quantum suicide experiment. I myself believe that there are always versions of us that survive into different futures but I don't believe that one's consciousness is therefore immortal. I think each version of us only experiences a finite lifetime but that just before we die there are always other versions branching off into futures where they live longer. I believe this because of my ideas about the Doomsday Argument in the many-worlds scenario. Perhaps I could contribute to the quantum immortality article (or at least provide a link to the Doomsday argument) User:John Eastmond 13:05, 1 Dec 2004
Ultimate fate of the Universe and Quantum immortality may also be interesting articles for you. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've added some paragraphs to the Quantum immortality article. I hope I haven't overdone it! Do you think it's worth starting a "Many Worlds Doomsday Argument" article where I present the mathematics in more detail?

User: John Eastmond 1 Dec 2004

Sure. Be aware somebody may want to delete it tho, so be careful not to make it overly original research, and try to reference other people, provide criticism,. etc... [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Thanks a lot for your improvement to the simplification of the Doomsday argument. I knew using average wasn't right, I just didn't really know what to replace it with. It makes more sense like that. UnHoly 14:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. John Eastmond 16:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion of the Doomsday argument page quoting you

Hi,

I found your Doomsday Argument ideas worthy of inclusion (contrary to some of the DA discussion page comments), and your exposition very clear, so I've mentioned that paper in the (much expanded) definition.

I feel funny redefining some of your own ideas back to you, but that seems to be the Wikipedia rule. I have only just started working on the DA page, but would appreciate your thoughts. I didn't want to have a look at the earlier revisions you made as I thought I would then essentially be a mouthpiece (for a user banned from writing about his own research).

I thought it was worth deriving the probabilities from Bayes's theorm, since this is what the definition says the argument does. Did you include such a derivation at an earlier point, or do you think equations are out of place on the DA page?

Wragge 14:59, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)