I think I can prove that QTI as intepreted in this list is false, I'll post
the proof in a new thread.
The only version of QTI that makes sense to me is this:
All possible states exist "out there" in the multiverse. The observer
moments are timeless objects so, in a certain sense, QTI is true. But then
you must consider surviving with memory loss.
E.g., if I'm diagnosed with a terminal illness, then there is still a branch
in which I haven't been diagnosed with that illness. If I'm 100 years old,
then I still have copies that are only 20 years old etc. etc.
Saibal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Johnathan Corgan" <jcorgan.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: Russell's book
>
> David Nyman wrote:
>
> [re: QTI]
> > This has obvious
> > implications for retirement planning in general and avoidance of the
> > more egregious cul-de-sac situations. On the other hand, short of
> > outright lunacy vis-a-vis personal safety, it also seems to imply that
> > from the 1st-person pov we are likely to come through (albeit possibly
> > in less-than-perfect shape) even apparently minimally survivable
> > situations. This struck me particularly forcibly while watching the
> > 9/11 re-runs on TV last night.
>
> It's the cul-de-sac situations that interest me. Are there truly any?
> Are there moments of consciousness which have no logically possible
> continuation (while remaining conscious?)
>
> It seems the canonical example is surviving a nearby nuclear detonation.
> One logical possibility is that all your constituent particles
> quantum-tunnel away from the blast in time.
>
> This would be of extremely low measure in absolute terms, but what about
> the proportion of continuations that contain you as a conscious entity?
>
> This also touches on a recent thread about "how being of low measure
> feels." If QTI is true, and I'm subject to a nuclear detonation, does it
> matter if my possible continuations are of such a low relative measure?
> Once I'm "in" them, would I feel any different and should I care?
>
> These questions may reduce to something like, "Is there a lower limit to
> the amplitude of the SWE?"
>
> If measure is infinitely divisible, then is there any natural scale to
> its absolute value?
>
> I raised a similar question on the list a few months ago when Tookie
> Wiliams was in the headlines and was eventually executed by the State of
> California. What possible continuations exist in this situation?
>
> > In effect, we are being presented with a kind of 'yes doctor' in
> > everyday life. Do you find that these considerations affect your own
> > behaviour in any way?
>
> A very interesting question.
>
> If my expectation is that QTI is true and I'll be living for a very long
> time, I may adjust my financial planning accordingly. But QTI only
> applies to my own first-person view; I'll be constantly "shedding"
> branches where I did indeed die. If I have any financial dependents, do
> I provide for their welfare, even if they'll only exist forever outside
> my ability to interact with?
>
> -Johnathan
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Sep 12 2006 - 17:59:26 PDT