Fwd: why is death painful? - Validity and Morality of QS

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:58:29 EDT

In a message dated 99-06-08 02:04:53 EDT, GSLevy.domain.name.hidden writes:

<<
 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. >>

The problem of QS and Quantum Immortality is major and, as the reality of
Quantum theory trickles down into the general public and becomes "familiar,"
these issues will probably become the most important moral dilemma of the
future. Most recent posts have only been preaching to the choir and I am one
of them. We need all the devil's advocates we can find. Are we or are we not
immortal? Is QS "Good" or "Evil?" Do we want to become big fish in a small
pond or small fish in a big pond? (I.e., restrict the measure of the world we
perceive for our own benefit, OR allow ourselves to propagate as much as
possible through the MW and suffer the strings of outrageous fortune. Let's
hear some strong clear and convincing arguments opposing QS. Jacques Mallah
were are you?

George

attached mail follows:



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

--------------------
Return-Path: <everything-list-request.domain.name.hidden>
Received: from rly-zc04.mx.aol.com (rly-zc04.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.4]) by
        air-zc05.mail.aol.com (v59.34) with SMTP; Mon, 07 Jun 1999 21:51:05
        2000
Received: from mx1.eskimo.com (mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48])
          by rly-zc04.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
          with ESMTP id VAA16736;
          Mon, 7 Jun 1999 21:51:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from smartlst.domain.name.hidden)
        by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA01244;
        Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:50:10 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:50:10 -0700
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:50:05 -0700
From: Wei Dai <weidai.domain.name.hidden>
To: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Cc: "'everything-list.domain.name.hidden'" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com>
Subject: Re: why is death painful?
Message-ID: <19990607185004.C23526.domain.name.hidden>
References: <C161B7880426D21198E30020484031ED0116A5D9.domain.name.hidden>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i
In-Reply-To: <C161B7880426D21198E30020484031ED0116A5D9.domain.name.hidden>;
        from Higgo James on Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 10:15:45AM +0100
Resent-Message-ID: <"i9Tk_.0.NJ.IR7Nt".domain.name.hidden>
Resent-From: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
X-Mailing-List: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden> archive/latest/687
X-Loop: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: everything-list-request.domain.name.hidden
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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 Tue Jun 08 1999 - 12:16:08 PDT

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