In a message dated 99-06-07 21:51:05 EDT, weidai.domain.name.hidden writes:
<<
On Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 10:15:45AM +0100, Higgo James wrote:
> All good points, but if you look at the bigger picture, the universe is all
> the same stuff, all numbers. The concept of 'my' is meaningless (or can you
> show otherwise?), so caring about 'my measure' is foolish. Yes, our genes
> would care, if they could care. So what?
And Weidai wrote:
<<Are you saying nothing is worth caring about? Then why did you care enough
to write this article? Or are you saying that we should only care about
things that we can justify is worth caring about, and that we don't have
such a justification for measure? If it is the latter, tell us what you
do care about and justify them. >>
I think we are touching on the BIG PROBLEM that will concern the ethicisists
of the 21th century and beyond. How to give meaning to physical life and
counter QS in view of the MWI. For if we do not find a reason to counter QS
the future of the human race is doomed (in most worlds) if the concept of
measure can be quantified in any ways.
George
George
attached mail follows:
On Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 10:15:45AM +0100, Higgo James wrote:
> All good points, but if you look at the bigger picture, the universe is all
> the same stuff, all numbers. The concept of 'my' is meaningless (or can you
> show otherwise?), so caring about 'my measure' is foolish. Yes, our genes
> would care, if they could care. So what?
Are you saying nothing is worth caring about? Then why did you care enough
to write this article? Or are you saying that we should only care about
things that we can justify is worth caring about, and that we don't have
such a justification for measure? If it is the latter, tell us what you
do care about and justify them.
Received on Mon Jun 07 1999 - 23:04:58 PDT