Wei,
The quantum immortality idea is important, because it says that (1) there is
never a branch which is a 'dead-end' and (2) you can always expect to end up
in a branch in which you exist, so from your point of view you are actually
immortal. I.e. you WILL be alive in a billion years. It is not that some
other Wei Dai that is probably not 'you' will exist forever; it is YOU who
will live forever. That matters; you'd better start investing for your
retirement. May I recommend a Tontine?
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: 05 December 1998 23:58
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: quantum suicide = deadly dumb (fwd)
>
> I think this issue of measure is interesting, and relates to expected
> values of conscious observation. If the measure decreases rapidly,
> then the expected concious observation will be for the mean, at some
> low age (say one's thirties) rather than when one is a billion years
> old. However, rapidly diminishing measure is still compatible with
> finding oneself in a branch with arbirtrary age.
>
> Personally, I think the idea of where one expects to make a concious
> observation based on probability measure rather suspect. I do believe
> it is relevant to where we find ourselves in history though.
>
> Cheers
>
> Forwarded message:
> > From everything-list-request.domain.name.hidden Sat Dec 5 14:31 EST 1998
> > Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 19:19:16 -0800
> > Message-ID: <19981204191905.C3947.domain.name.hidden>
> > Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 19:19:05 -0800
> > From: Wei Dai <weidai.domain.name.hidden>
> > To: "Jacques M. Mallah" <jqm1584.domain.name.hidden>,
> everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > Subject: Re: quantum suicide = deadly dumb
> > References: <Pine.OSF.3.95.981204125352.21306A-100000.domain.name.hidden>
> > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1i
> > In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.95.981204125352.21306A-100000.domain.name.hidden>;
> from Jacques M. Mallah on Fri, Dec 04, 1998 at 01:09:52PM -0500
> > Resent-Message-ID: <"TymJd2.0.sf7.pOAQs".domain.name.hidden>
> > Resent-From: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > X-Mailing-List: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden> archive/latest/172
> > X-Loop: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > Precedence: list
> > Resent-Sender: everything-list-request.domain.name.hidden
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > Content-Length: 554
> >
> > I think there are two different issues here. The quantum suicide issue
> is
> > whether the quantum suicide experiment can actually give evidence for
> MWI.
> > I basicly agree with Jacques here and think the answer is no.
> >
> > The quantum immortality issue is basicly a matter of definition. Should
> > someone consider himself immortal if every possible future version of
> > himself exists but dwindles out in measure as subjective time passes?
> > (And of course it has to dwindle out, otherwise the total would add up
> > to infinity.) Does it really matter? If so, in what way?
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Dr. Russell Standish Director
> High Performance Computing Support Unit,
> University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
> Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 7123
> Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
> Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
Received on Mon Dec 07 1998 - 10:31:34 PST