Hi jal278,
Le 23-juin-08, à 19:08, jal278 a écrit :
>
> First time post.
You are welcome.
> Would it be possible to use the principles of QS as
> an oracle? E.g. buy a lotto ticket before taking a flight, with the
> intention
> that if you win some improbable amount in the lotto you do not take
> the flight.
> Perhaps this flight was extremely likely to crash and your odds of
> survival are slim.
> Would then your observer moment be more likely in the universe where
> you win
> some improbable amount (odds 1:10,000 maybe) in the lotto? This could
> apply
> to any potentially dangerous choice you might make.
I think you make things a bit complex. Any decisions based on quantum
choices will in the long run makes you believe it has helped you to
live longer. But with QI this is not even necessary. Nor do I think
being very old on branch is something we should wish ...
Now, if you want, you could already exploit "quantum superstition" by
selling quantum choice devices, here and now, ... to make money ...
>
> Similarly, assuming that QI is true, the survival probabilities at the
> end cases (where you
> are >150 yrs old) would get to be incredibly small, such that perhaps
> healthy decisions
> made when you are younger (i.e. never smoke, keep fit) would *greatly*
> increase those probabilities
> (maybe even to 10^7 or in the range needed to win the lottery).
> So, if you have unhealthy habits that you have no intention of
> stopping, but bought a lotto
> ticket with the intention of never drinking/smoking again if you won
> some improbable amount,
> it seems that your observer moment might be more likely in the
> universe where you win.
Hmmm... I don't like any "precaution principle", and here you are
advocating a sort of quantum precaution principle. I am not convinced.
>
> My understanding of QI and the way that observer moments are chosen
> may be mistaken,
> just an idea I wanted to throw out before I gave the latter a try
> (since there is really nothing to lose like
> in QS).
The truth is that concerning "immortality" and Observer Moments
selection (the recurring thema of this list), there are many open
problems, so it is hard and perhaps premature to think about it in term
of practical decision. I will say more on first person immortality in a
post to Tom Caylor some day (I am still a bit busy). Third person
immortality, i.e. "very long life" could make sense only if we forget
somehow how long it is, redundancies, etc. ... but feel free to send us
your latter try.
Bruno
>
>
> On Jun 5, 9:28 am, Lawrence <l.a.kel....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>> Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this is
>> my first post to the group.
>>
>> It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some
>> reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I will
>> live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to collect
>> it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for
>> it!
>>
>> Any thoughts/flames appreciated.
>>
>> Lawrence
> >
>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Jun 27 2008 - 11:38:50 PDT