On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 12:52:25PM -0000, David Nyman wrote:
>
> Hi Russell
>
> I just received the book and have swiftly perused it (one of many
> iterations I expect). I find it to be a clear presentation of your own
> approach as well as a fine exposition of many topics from the list that
> had me baffled. A couple of things immediately occur:
>
> 1) QTI - I must say until reading your remarks (e.g. re pension plans)
> the possible personal consequences of QTI hadn't really struck me. If
> QTI is true, there is a fundamental assymetry between the 1st and
> 3rd-person povs vis-a-vis personal longevity (at least the longevity of
> consciousness), and this seems to imply that one should take seriously
> the prospect of being around in some form far longer than generally
> assumed from a purely 3rd-person perspective. 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.
>
> 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?
I mentioned two examples in my book - retirement savings planning - I
will be looking wherever possible for "lifetime" pension options. Of
course from a QTI perspective, the value of these are limited by the
estimated lifetime of the superannuation company.
The second example is my attitude to euthanasia has changed.
Beyond that, I suppose I no longer fear death. What I do fear is
incapacitation, and so I weigh my risks of bodily damage in any
action against the risks to personal liberty etc. by inaction. It
probably does not change the decision matrix very much at all, however
I can't see suicide bombing as a useful strategy under QTI.
>
> 2) RSSA vs ASSA - Isn't it the case that all 'absolute' self samples
> will appear to be 'relative' (i.e. to their own content) and hence
> 1st-person experience can be 'time-like' without the need for
> 'objective' sequencing of observer moments? If the 'pov' is that of the
> multiverse can't we simply treat all 1st-person experience as the
> 'absolute sampling' of all povs compresently?
>
> David
>
I've lost you here. Maybe you need to expand a bit.
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 - 22:45:16 PDT