Re: Amoeba croaks -

From: Gale <wmgale.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 08:56:19 -0500

Jacques M Mallah wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Max Tegmark wrote:
> > > the amoeba can regenerate into you
> > That's an interesting point.
> > I agree that you'll make a spectacular recovery from
> > your brain-damaged amoeba-like state in a number of branches,
> > but just like a broken egg only comes together again
> > in a negligible fraction of all branches, the same will apply here.
> > So a TYPICAL expectation for my subjective future is probably that
> > I will gradually fade away without ever making much of a comeback.
>
> Max, you may be just one step away from seeing the error of your
> ways. You seem to realize that measure is the issue. Why can't you
> realize that even if the amoeba went one step further and dissapeared
> completely, or if you were to consider the amoeba to be some individual
> other than yourself, it would not help you in the slightest to be
> effectively immortal?
> Most of your measure is in your pre-suicide perceptions.
>
> - - - - - - -
Jacques Mallah

It looks to this observer as if the quantum immortality
notion is tied into supposing the "Many" in MWI is
Uncountably Many (the continuous wave function). It would
appear that you will get the same results if "Many" is Countably
Many but dense in the wavefunction. But is it
possible to reject "Many" as Finite (if huge), as for
instance from a quantization of space-time in _some_
way (no theory offered)? Planck length and time are
mighty small to be sure than the abstraction of continuity
holds across them.

Bill Gale
Received on Wed Jan 13 1999 - 06:04:18 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST