Whose consciousness lasts forever?

https://www.ladbible.com/news/science/humans-live-forever-immortal-quantum-immortality-theory-explained-360052-20240801

"Whenever you die in one universe, your consciousness just gets transferred into another universe where you survive,” she said (basically identical idea as Heaven right 😉 A* for originality )

Lets explore that with ChatGPT:

So it can be formalised by the following:

1. Define the predicates:

   • D(x, u): Person x dies in universe u.
   • C(x, u): Person x is conscious in universe u.
   • S(x, u): Person x survives in universe u.
   • T(x, u1, u2): Consciousness of person x is transferred from universe u1 to universe u2.

2. The proposition:

   • Whenever person x dies in universe u, their consciousness is transferred to another universe u' where they survive.

   This can be written as:

   • ∀x ∀u (D(x, u) → ∃u' (T(x, u, u') ∧ S(x, u')))

   This statement means that for any person x and universe u, if x dies in u, then there exists another universe u' such that x's consciousness is transferred from u to u', and x survives in u'.

Now if we consider universes like Sets and being alive means belonging to the set and dead means not belonging to othe set: So that S(x, u) and D(x, u) can be replaced with:

x ∈ u: Person x exists in universe u

¬(x ∈ u): Person x does not exist in universe u

Which gives us: ∀x ∀u (¬(x ∈ u) → ∃u' (T(x, u, u') ∧ x ∈ u'))

which reads: for any person x and universe u, if x does not exist in u, then there exists another universe u' such that x's consciousness is transferred from u to u', and x exists in u'

Now we have 2 questions about the link between x and their consciousness: (1) can x exist without being conscious. (2) can x's consciousness exist without x?

(1) So we can be unconscious, consider being asleep. So x does not need a consciousness. So ∀x T(x,,) may not be valid. That is you can't transfer x's consciousness if they are unconscious. (2) This appears to be key point of the statement, that our consciousness can transfer to another universe and then we exist in that universe.

(2) seems to suggest then that our consciousness is a greater entity than our existence. Let us create Consciousness (with a big C) that can swap between universes but unlike x never does not exist.

There is a clear difference in this theory between x which dies and stops being a member of the universe, and x's consciousness which simply transfers to another universe when x dies.

One wonders why this theory is so convoluted. Why not just have x move between universes when we die. I guess it is just a repackaging of the idea of a "soul" but here soul has been renamed to consciousness.

Now I'm going into depth here because I want to root out the assumed "ontology" behind this theory. What does this theory propose actually exists. And I assume this is a good indication of what modern western society currently assumes.

Note that the logic is still a bit loose because T(x,,) refers to a verb a "transfer" while everything else is just a statement of set membership. Really we need a bigger Universe here in which "time" exists against which we can speak of the membership of a set before and after applying a function. All universes exist within U so that we can: (1) compare the elements between universes. So that we can say that u1 contains x and u2 does not. (2) Order the states so that we can say: {u1 contains x and u2 does not, u1 does not contain x and u2 does} without contradiction.

And let the partial function θ(state) return the index of that state. Which is to say at what time was the world like this. Partial function because such a state may never have existed. We also assume that states never repeat so that the function is bijective and there is a unique θ(state) for every unique state.

So now we can say that when we apply T(x,u,u1) it means {x ∈ u1 ∧ x ∉ u2, x ∉ u1 ∧ x ∈ u2} where θ(x ∈ u1 ∧ x ∉ u2) < θ(x ∉ u1 ∧ x ∈ u2)

So we are simply saying that the state of x being in universe u1 and then u2 must come before x being in universe u2.

SO that was just the fully formalise the theory and point out that we need a higher perspective of a meta-universe from which we can compare universes and order their states in time.

Lets remember that x are people and people have consciousness.

Running out of time.

Essentially the problem I see here is that Consciousness actually appears to be the entity here and the person x is rather secondary.

True it is the consciousness of a person. But we say that a person can die and be removed from one universe and the consciousness be transferred to another universe where up x is now a member of that universe.

Surely it is the consciousness that is being removed from one universe and transferred to the other. Whether there is person attached is rather arbitrary.

How does it look if we say instead of "a person has a consciousness" rather "a consciousness has a person"?

Well actually it makes no difference. "x" essentially refers to a person and/or a consciousness - they go together. This is basically the Body/Mind problem and x here is Body/Mind complex.

So why not say when a consciousness dies our body gets transferred to another universe?

The original idea argues that there is some necessity to our existence. Maybe many asteroids have collided with Earth and the human race has been wiped out countless times. For us to still exist we must have been transferred to another more favourable universe. It says that our consciousness is what is transferred, but how then do we get a body? Perhaps its like Quantum Leap and we just take over an existing person in that universe. Nice ;-) Or perhaps the memories of our childhood and time in this new universe are all faked to only make us think we have lived in this universe for ages. Or perhaps we were always in that other universe and somehow we just merge when one self dies. It all very unclear and also unnecessary. Quick application of Occam's Razor here to clean up.

We have been born and we will die. This is the x. This x will cease to be a member of any universe. In a multiverse there are other x but they are different, they are not me.

Consciousness is more complex, but the key observation is that we are conscious of the body. Now it gets subtle. Consciousness exists as immediate current awareness. What people call The Now. The problem when people and scientists like to "think" about consciousness is they translate consciousness into material temporal existence. But this is not what consciousness is. It is true the application of narcotic drugs can switch off consciousness. Going to sleep switches off consciousness. But from what perspective is this true? From the perspective of a different time and place. When we regain consciousness we don't actually "regain" consciousness we just become conscious of having no memory. This is quite different! When we wake up in the morning we tell people we were asleep. But we are referring to a past self and a past time recalling something that has already happened. Consciousness itself is ALWAYS NOW. This is the mistake all people make of confusing their actual self which is NOW and what they think is themselves which is the bundle of memories, and what people think of them and the photos and stories and the baggage and history of this body. None of that is consciousness.

Returning to the top then actually "Consciousness is of an x" but an x does not have consciousness! And what will be a problem for predicate logic there is no x which is consciousness.

Simple proof of that (from previous blogs):

Say I am conscious of a mountain far away. Where is that mountain? Far away. Where is the consciousness? (A) In my body. How does the consciousness in the body manifest a mountain far away? (B) So there are usually 2 answers to this: (1) The mountain is really in my body as a simulation. And where is my body then? That must be in my body too. This generates a viscous circle. (1.1) The mountain is just a virtual mountain it is not real while my body is real. The image of the mountain is in my body, while my body is real. And what evidence is there for your body being different from the mountain? (2) The consciousness is not in the body, but is the whole process of light leaving the mountain, entering the eyes and being processed by the brain. This contradicts (A) above. So actually C(x, u) is problematic. I wish to continue this later to see how much we can formalise of this still totally misunderstood issue in the West.

TBC

===

ChatGPT conversation

Could you convert this into a predicate logic statement "Whenever you die in one universe, your consciousness just gets transferred into another universe where you survive”

Certainly! The given statement can be converted into a predicate logic statement. Let's define the following predicates and terms:

• $D(x, u)$: Person $x$ dies in universe $u$.
• $C(x, u)$: Person $x$ is conscious in universe $u$.
• $S(x, u)$: Person $x$ survives in universe $u$.
• $T(x, u_1, u_2)$: Consciousness of person $x$ is transferred from universe $u_1$ to universe $u_2$.

With these definitions, the statement "Whenever you die in one universe, your consciousness just gets transferred into another universe where you survive" can be formalized as:

$\forall x \forall u ( D(x, u) \rightarrow \exists u' ( T(x, u, u') \land S(x, u') ) )$

This means that for any person $x$ and any universe $u$, if $x$ dies in $u$, then there exists another universe $u'$ such that $x$'s consciousness is transferred from $u$ to $u'$, and $x$ survives in $u'$.

can you produce that answer in ascii?

Sure! Here is the predicate logic statement in ASCII:

$$\forall x \forall u ( D(x, u) \rightarrow \exists u' ( T(x, u, u') \land S(x, u') ) )$$

This reads as: For all $x$ and for all $u$, if $x$ dies in $u$, then there exists some $u'$ such that the consciousness of $x$ is transferred from $u$ to $u'$ and $x$ survives in $u'$.

How would you formulate in this schema the proposition that a dead person has no consciousness?

To formulate the proposition that a dead person has no consciousness in the given schema, we need to express that if a person $x$ is dead in universe $u$, then $x$ is not conscious in universe $u$.

Using the predicates already defined:

• $D(x, u)$: Person $x$ dies in universe $u$.
• $C(x, u)$: Person $x$ is conscious in universe $u$.

The statement can be written as:

$\forall x \forall u ( D(x, u) \rightarrow \neg C(x, u) )$

This means that for any person $x$ and any universe $u$, if $x$ is dead in $u$, then $x$ is not conscious in $u$.

Can you also formulate the proposition that when Person x is dead in universe u they do not exist anymore in universe u?

Certainly! To formulate the proposition that when person $x$ is dead in universe $u$, they do not exist anymore in universe $u$, we need to introduce a new predicate for existence:

• $E(x, u)$: Person $x$ exists in universe $u$.

Using this new predicate along with the previously defined predicate $D(x, u)$ (Person $x$ dies in universe $u$), the statement can be written as:

$\forall x \forall u ( D(x, u) \rightarrow \neg E(x, u) )$

This means that for any person $x$ and any universe $u$, if $x$ is dead in $u$, then $x$ does not exist in $u$.

So a person can die in universe u and so not exist in universe u but still be conscious?

If we take the statements independently, it is possible to derive that a person can be conscious even if they do not exist in a universe. To avoid this contradiction, we need to ensure that consciousness is tied to existence. We can introduce an additional logical connection to express that consciousness implies existence.

Using the predicates we have:

• $D(x, u)$: Person $x$ dies in universe $u$.
• $C(x, u)$: Person $x$ is conscious in universe $u$.
• $E(x, u)$: Person $x$ exists in universe $u$.

We need to add a statement that explicitly ties existence to consciousness, such as:

$\forall x \forall u ( C(x, u) \rightarrow E(x, u) )$

This means that for any person $x$ and any universe $u$, if $x$ is conscious in $u$, then $x$ exists in $u$.

Now, we have the following statements:

1. $\forall x \forall u ( D(x, u) \rightarrow \neg E(x, u) )$: If $x$ is dead in $u$, then $x$ does not exist in $u$.
2. $\forall x \forall u ( C(x, u) \rightarrow E(x, u) )$: If $x$ is conscious in $u$, then $x$ exists in $u$.

With these statements, we ensure that a person who is dead (and thus does not exist) in a universe cannot be conscious in that universe.

So this means that that when a person dies they are not conscious

Yes, with the statements we have established, we can indeed conclude that when a person dies, they are not conscious. Let's break down how these statements lead to this conclusion.

We have the following:

1. $\forall x \forall u ( D(x, u) \rightarrow \neg E(x, u) )$: If $x$ is dead in $u$, then $x$ does not exist in $u$.
2. $\forall x \forall u ( C(x, u) \rightarrow E(x, u) )$: If $x$ is conscious in $u$, then $x$ exists in $u$.

From these two statements, we can derive that if a person is dead in a universe, they cannot be conscious in that universe. Here's the reasoning:

• From statement 1: If $x$ is dead in $u$ ($D(x, u)$), then $x$ does not exist in $u$ ($\neg E(x, u)$).
• From statement 2: If $x$ is conscious in $u$ ($C(x, u)$), then $x$ exists in $u$ ($E(x, u)$).

Given that $\neg E(x, u)$ (not existing) directly contradicts $E(x, u)$ (existing), a person cannot be conscious and dead at the same time in the same universe.

Thus, we can derive the following statement:

$\forall x \forall u ( D(x, u) \rightarrow \neg C(x, u) )$

This states that if person $x$ is dead in universe $u$, then person $x$ is not conscious in universe $u$.

can we reformulate this so that universes are sets and E(x,u) really means that x is a member of u

Certainly! We can reformulate the statements using the concept of universes as sets and $E(x, u)$ meaning that $x$ is a member of $u$.

Let's define the following:

• $x \in u$: Person $x$ is a member (exists) in universe $u$.
• $D(x, u)$: Person $x$ dies in universe $u$.
• $C(x, u)$: Person $x$ is conscious in universe $u$.

Given these definitions, we can reformulate the previous statements as follows:

1. $\forall x \forall u ( D(x, u) \rightarrow x \notin u )$: If $x$ is dead in $u$, then $x$ is not a member of (does not exist in) $u$.
2. $\forall x \forall u ( C(x, u) \rightarrow x \in u )$: If $x$ is conscious in $u$, then $x$ is a member of (exists in) $u$.

With these statements, we can ensure that a person who is dead in a universe cannot be conscious in that universe. The logical derivation remains the same:

• From statement 1: If $x$ is dead in $u$ ($D(x, u)$), then $x$ is not a member of $u$ ($x \notin u$).
• From statement 2: If $x$ is conscious in $u$ ($C(x, u)$), then $x$ is a member of $u$ ($x \in u$).

Given that $x \notin u$ (not a member) directly contradicts $x \in u$ (a member), a person cannot be conscious and dead at the same time in the same universe.

Therefore, we can reformulate the final derived statement as:

$\forall x \forall u ( D(x, u) \rightarrow \neg C(x, u) )$

This states that if person $x$ is dead in universe $u$, then person $x$ is not conscious in universe $u$.

Does D(x,u) imply that x is a member of u?

Yes, in the context of our reformulated logic where universes are sets and $E(x, u)$ means that $x$ is a member of $u$, $D(x, u)$ (person $x$ dies in universe $u$) implies that $x$ was once a member of $u$.

Let's redefine the predicates clearly:

• $x \in u$: Person $x$ is a member (exists) in universe $u$.
• $D(x, u)$: Person $x$ dies in universe $u$.
• $C(x, u)$: Person $x$ is conscious in universe $u$.

In this context, for $D(x, u)$ to be meaningful, $x$ must have been a member of $u$ at some point. Therefore, we can state:

$\forall x \forall u ( D(x, u) \rightarrow x \in u )$

This ensures that if $x$ dies in universe $u$, then $x$ is a member of (exists in) universe $u$.

Now let's put together all the statements for clarity:

1. $\forall x \forall u ( D(x, u) \rightarrow x \in u )$: If $x$ dies in $u$, then $x$ is a member of $u$.
2. $\forall x \forall u ( D(x, u) \rightarrow x \notin u )$: If $x$ dies in $u$, then $x$ is not a member of $u$.
3. $\forall x \forall u ( C(x, u) \rightarrow x \in u )$: If $x$ is conscious in $u$, then $x$ is a member of $u$.

To resolve any contradictions, we should interpret the statements to ensure logical consistency. The intended meaning is likely:

• If $x$ dies in $u$, then $x$ was a member of $u$ and then is no longer a member of $u$.

To express this clearly, we could use a temporal aspect, but within the limits of standard predicate logic, we would instead ensure consistency by interpreting:

$\forall x \forall u ( D(x, u) \rightarrow (x \in u \land \neg x \in u) )$

However, this form is not logically consistent as it attempts to state a contradiction.

Thus, considering the logical flow correctly:

1. $\forall x \forall u ( D(x, u) \rightarrow \neg (x \in u) )$: If $x$ dies in $u$, then $x$ is not a member of $u$.
2. $\forall x \forall u ( C(x, u) \rightarrow x \in u )$: If $x$ is conscious in $u$, then $x$ is a member of $u$.

So, to ensure consistency, $x$ must be a member of $u$ before $D(x, u)$ is applied, ensuring a meaningful context where death implies prior existence and subsequent non-existence.

out of interest which format are you writing this?

The logical statements I provided are written in the form of first-order predicate logic. This is a formal system used in mathematics, computer science, and philosophy to denote logical statements precisely.

Here’s a summary of the syntax used:

1. Universal Quantification ($\forall$): Indicates that the statement applies to all elements in the domain.

   • Example: $\forall x \forall u$ means "for all $x$ and for all $u$."

2. Implication ($\rightarrow$): Indicates that if the statement before the arrow is true, then the statement after the arrow must also be true.

   • Example: $D(x, u) \rightarrow x \in u$ means "if $x$ dies in $u$, then $x$ is a member of $u$."

3. Negation ($\neg$): Indicates that the statement following it is not

sorry I mean which text format

The text format I'm using is plain text with logical symbols and notation to represent predicate logic. This format includes symbols like $\forall$ (for all), $\rightarrow$ (implies), and $\neg$ (not). In ASCII text, the format looks like this:

• Universal quantification: forall
  • Example: forall x forall u means "for all $x$ and for all $u$."
• Implication: ->
  • Example: D(x, u) -> x in u means "if $x$ dies in $u$, then $x$ is a member of $u$."
• Negation: ~
  • Example: ~C(x, u) means "not conscious in universe $u$."

So, the statements in ASCII

I mean the type script

Ah, I see! The text format I’m using is plain text with mathematical symbols typically used in logical notation. In contexts like typesetting or programming, this might correspond to different formats or markup languages. For instance:

• LaTeX: Often used for mathematical typesetting, it provides precise control over the presentation of logical statements. For example:

  latex
  \forall x \forall u \, (D(x, u) \rightarrow \neg E(x, u))
  

• Markdown: Can be used with some extensions for rendering mathematical notation. For example:

  markdown
  \forall x \forall u \, (D(x, u) \rightarrow \neg E(x, u))
  

• ASCII: A plain text representation that uses standard characters for logical notation:

  plaintext
  forall x forall u (D(x, u) -> not E(x, u))
  

• Programming Languages: In some programming languages or logic frameworks, you might use different syntax to express logical statements, but the basic concepts remain the same.

If you’re asking about a specific format or language in a particular context, let me know, and I can tailor the explanation or formatting accordingly!

can you write your logic in ascii from now on?

Absolutely! I can use plain ASCII text to write out logical statements. Here’s how the previous logic would look in ASCII format:

1. If a person dies in a universe, then they were a member of that universe:

   java
   forall x forall u (D(x, u) -> x in u)
   

2. If a person dies in a universe, then they are not a member of that universe:

   scss
   forall x forall u (D(x, u) -> not (x in u))
   

3. If a person is conscious in a universe, then they are a member of that universe:

   java
   forall x forall u (C(x, u) -> x in u)
   

4. Combining these, if a person dies in a universe, then they cannot be conscious in that universe:

   scss
   forall x forall u (D(x, u) -> not C(x, u))
   

In these statements:

• forall x means "for all x".
• -> represents logical implication (if ... then ...).
• not represents logical negation (not).
• x in u means "x is a member of universe u".

sorry I mean keep using symbols but not in latex

Got it! I'll use ASCII symbols to represent logical notation going forward. Here’s how the statements would look in that format:

1. If a person dies in a universe, then they were a member of that universe:

   less
   ∀x ∀u (D(x, u) → x ∈ u)
   

2. If a person dies in a universe, then they are not a member of that universe:

   scss
   ∀x ∀u (D(x, u) → ¬(x ∈ u))
   

3. If a person is conscious in a universe, then they are a member of that universe:

   less
   ∀x ∀u (C(x, u) → x ∈ u)
   

4. If a person dies in a universe, then they cannot be conscious in that universe:

   scss
   ∀x ∀u (D(x, u) → ¬C(x, u))
   

In these statements:

• ∀ represents "for all".
• → represents logical implication ("implies").
• ¬ represents logical negation ("not").
• x ∈ u means "x is a member of universe u".

Great I wonder can you put the code inline with the text

Certainly! I'll integrate the ASCII logic notation directly within the text. Here’s how the information looks with the logical expressions inline:

1. If a person x dies in universe u, then x was a member of universe u can be expressed as:

   • ∀x ∀u (D(x, u) → x ∈ u)

2. If a person x dies in universe u, then x is not a member of universe u can be written as:

   • ∀x ∀u (D(x, u) → ¬(x ∈ u))

3. If a person x is conscious in universe u, then x is a member of universe u can be represented as:

   • ∀x ∀u (C(x, u) → x ∈ u)

4. Therefore, if a person x dies in universe u, then x cannot be conscious in that universe is expressed as:

   • ∀x ∀u (D(x, u) → ¬C(x, u))

This format allows you to see the logical expressions embedded directly within the explanatory text.

great so can you express like this the original proposition

Certainly! Here’s the original proposition "Whenever you die in one universe, your consciousness just gets transferred into another universe where you survive" expressed inline with ASCII logical notation:

1. Define the predicates:

   • D(x, u): Person x dies in universe u.
   • C(x, u): Person x is conscious in universe u.
   • S(x, u): Person x survives in universe u.
   • T(x, u1, u2): Consciousness of person x is transferred from universe u1 to universe u2.

2. The proposition:

   • Whenever person x dies in universe u, their consciousness is transferred to another universe u' where they survive.

   This can be written as:

   • ∀x ∀u (D(x, u) → ∃u' (T(x, u, u') ∧ S(x, u')))

   This statement means that for any person x and universe u, if x dies in u, then there exists another universe u' such that x's consciousness is transferred from u to u', and x survives in u'.

And then reformulate replacing D(x,u) with not existing in the set u

Certainly! To reformulate the proposition using "not existing in the set u" instead of D(x, u), let’s redefine the predicates accordingly:

1. Define the new predicates:

   • ¬(x ∈ u): Person x does not exist in universe u.
   • C(x, u): Person x is conscious in universe u.
   • S(x, u): Person x survives in universe u.
   • T(x, u1, u2): Consciousness of person x is transferred from universe u1 to universe u2.

2. Restate the proposition:

   • Whenever person x does not exist in universe u, their consciousness is transferred to another universe u' where they survive.

   This can be written as:

   • ∀x ∀u (¬(x ∈ u) → ∃u' (T(x, u, u') ∧ S(x, u')))

   This statement means that for any person x and universe u, if x does not exist in u, then there exists another universe u' such that x's consciousness is transferred from u to u', and x survives in u'.

And then reformulate replacing S(x,u) with existing in the set u

Certainly! Let's redefine the predicates so that S(x, u) (person x survives in universe u) is replaced with x ∈ u (person x exists in universe u):

1. Define the new predicates:

   • ¬(x ∈ u): Person x does not exist in universe u.
   • C(x, u): Person x is conscious in universe u.
   • x ∈ u: Person x exists in universe u.
   • T(x, u1, u2): Consciousness of person x is transferred from universe u1 to universe u2.

2. Restate the proposition:

   • Whenever person x does not exist in universe u, their consciousness is transferred to another universe u' where they exist.

   This can be written as:

   • ∀x ∀u (¬(x ∈ u) → ∃u' (T(x, u, u') ∧ x ∈ u'))

This statement means that for any person x and universe u, if x does not exist in u, then there exists another universe u' such that x's consciousness is transferred from u to u', and x exists in u'.