RE: Conventional QTI = False

From: Charles Goodwin <cgoodwin.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 10:41:44 +1200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:smitra.domain.name.hidden]
>
> I just argue that to compute the probability distribution for your next
> experience, given your previous ones, you must also consider continuations
> were you suffer memory loss. QTI fails to do so and it is precisely this
> that leads to the the prediction that you should find yourself being
> infinitely old, or that you should live for arbitrary long. If you are
> severly injured in an accident and dying, then the probability that you will
> survive in a branch where the accident never happened is much
> larger than living on in a branch where the accident did happen.

As I said previously, QTI implies that ALL observer moments experience an indefinite existence. So *both* these branches do, if QTI
is correct.

> That continuations with memory loss are important can be verified ``experimentally´´ (I don't remember everything that has
happened to me). There are also continuations of me that never forget anything. I am not one of them.

This doesn't imply that the memory loss has to be total amnesia, though. It could be more like a fadeout of memories after a certain
time. So one could only ever experience (or remember) being, say, 200 years old. (Does QTI insist that everyone experiences being
infinitely old with the memories to prove it, or "just" that they experience indefinitely prolonged consciousness?)

Charles
Received on Mon Sep 10 2001 - 15:39:11 PDT