Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposals

["Peter Cooper Jr." <pete@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jonathan David Amery writes:
> Craig Daniel writes:
> > Second, your green proposal purports to destroy non-prime Everett branches.
> > It in fact splits any universe in which it passed into two, one of which
> > appears to be identical to B' for all useful purposes (but can be
> > distinguished from it by phrases like "if the ineffectual Proposal 1-7
> > passed").
> 
>  Yes, and in all branches in which it works it works.  The
> *interpretation* of the rules is the same, even if the history is
> different.
> 
>  I don't think it's actually possible to destroy Everett branches; at
> least until/unless someone creates a mechanism for one branch to
> interact with another.

I originally thought that "What Happens If It Eats Itself?" wasn't going to do anything, but then I remembered that we are now resolving proposals in reverse order. As though time travel isn't confusing enough itself.

I do agree that under the structure I've basically set up, we don't have a way to destroy universes, except perhaps via a proposal like "If there doesn't exist a Rule titled 'Temporal Prime Directive', end the game." It's not clear what that would even do, though.

It will get unwieldy very quickly if every time-travelling prop doubles the number of universes we have, though.

-- 
Peter C.

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss