>
> 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.
Indeed, MWI does not IMHO rule out points in which all future branches
terminate. Its just that I can't think of any. It would be comforting
to know that there is at least the possibility of dieing.
>
> 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.
>
You are forgetting a fourth possibility. In order to successfully
implement QS, you must be absolutely sure that no negative
consequences occur because of your action. For instance, shooting
yourself with a gun is likely to leave you with a large hole in your
head for the reast of your eternal life (or worse - perhaps
paraplegic, or whatever). I would not attempt QS, because I cannot
ensure the outcomes will be what I want to achieve. Perhaps this will
change with better understanding, but that will be a long way off.
> 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
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Mon Jun 14 1999 - 21:45:03 PDT