Yes to all the above, except that it is highly unlikely we will live in a
world of people of a similar age; after a few billion years, the chance that
you have been wiped out by a freak accident approaches 1.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 5:45 AM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: QTI, SSI (fwd)
>
> >
> > Please James, Russell, redefine the term SSA. I must have missed a
> critical
> > exchange where this term was defined.
>
> "Self-Sampling Assumption". It is a generalisation (or
> specialisation?) of the totalitarian, or Copernican principle, in that
> you are saying there is nothing special about you. For example, SSA is
> often applied to birth order - that there are as many people born
> before you as are born afterwards - implying some sort of population
> crash in the near future.
>
> If you look back through the emails in the archive, you'll find
> references to papers and books where this term is introduced.
>
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 99-05-17 16:32:43 EDT, James Higgo writes:
> >
> > << For anyone else, the sight of a billion-year-old man
> > would not prove or disprove the Quantum Theory of
> > Immortality.
> > But for you, at age 1 billion, the probability that you
> > would reach a billion, given QTI, is one. >>
> >
> > I am in full agreement with this.
> >
> > However, left unsaid is the impact of living one billion years or one
> > trillion years on the perception of the self . More specifically, as
> long as
> > the Self views the universe RATIONALLY, there must be ANTHROPIC reasons
> in
> > his perceived universe for living that long. He must perceive the
> universe
> > around him to be evolving to support his own longevity. And he must also
>
> > perceives himself to be evolving since he must be conscious (have
> memory) of
> > living that long. Kind of "growing up." Undoubtedly, the Self resulting
> after
> > one billion years of anthropically supported evolution will be very
> different
> > from the common human self. Will the Self then be the "same" as the Self
> now?
> > Yes in the sense of being linked to the memories of his "youth" just
> like an
> > old man remembers being a child. And of course, there will be branches
> in the
> > MW where Selves loses their earlier memories. But we are not concerned
> about
> > these Selves since, having lost their memories, they have also lost
> their
> > link to their youth, their identity. To be of interest for the
> perception of
> > survival, the thread of consciousness through the MW must keep the
> memory
> > intact.
> >
> >
> > George
> >
> >
>
> This makes sense. Either we end up with large forgettories (which
> doesn't preclude retaining memories of our earliest times), or we end
> up being vastly evolved compared with our current existence. There is also
> nothing ruling out the possibility that our immortality comes through
> entirely mundane medical advances, rather than seeming miraculous. We
> could also end up living in a world with many people of similar age.
>
> Cheers
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 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 Tue May 18 1999 - 00:49:30 PDT