Re: Q Wars Episode 10^9: the Phantom Measure

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:18:03 EDT

Jacques may have a point that there may be cases where all branches terminate
EVEN IF THE MW IS INFINITE. As an example, we could consider in the domain of
mathematics Fermat's problem: There is no integer solution to the problem
X**n + Y**n = Z**n for all n > 2. This results holds for the infinite set of
integers X, Y Z and n. Similarly, this may implies that there exists in the
MW some worlds which are closed to us. However as long as the REMAINING
number of worlds is infinite we are still immortal. If the number of worlds
that we have access to is finite then we end up in an universe that
terminates or in an infinitely recurring universe which is as boring as a
universe that terminates. My hope is that our number of options is infinite.
I do not know the answer to this question.

I haven't heard of any QS yet. There are several possibility for this
situation:
1) Either no one is 100% convinced of QM immortality
2) Or those of us who are 100% convinced of QM immortality possess some form
of ethics that prevents them from QS. (even though no one has yet formulated
an explicit "morality" or "ethic" for a MW world)
3) Or those who are 100 convinced of QM immortality are happy to live a
schizophrenic existence actually believing several contradictory things
simultaneously, like Lewis Carrol said.

My favorite possibility is #2. I think it is possible to formulate an ethic
in the MW. I would like to counter the argument that says that since the MW
is complete chaos, contains all the possibility and why bother with ethics
since everything will happen anyway. My argument is that at a meta level, the
MW does give rise to life and consciousness which are emergent properties of
the MW and therefore we should have an ethic. Sometimes, after a close call
on the road that did not result in any accident, I catch myself worrying
about my wife and children in the other universes where I did not make it
alive. How can I tell them that over here everything is fine and not to worry?

Jacque Mallah wrote
>>Note 4: George, you still owe me an apology re: Bayesian Boxes.>>

Jacques, we had a good argument, and I bought Gilles' explanation. However, I
am not sure if I am ready to give up my point of view yet. I think that it is
possible to bridge the gap between the two points of views and explain one in
terms of the other. Jacques there is no animosity on my part and I really
enjoyed exchanging posts with you. I think the devil's advocate role that you
play is invaluable.
George
Received on Mon Jun 14 1999 - 12:26:53 PDT