FW: FIN Again (was: Re: James Higgo)

From: Charles Goodwin <cgoodwin.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 09:54:35 +1200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:jackmallah.domain.name.hidden]
>
> I've explained that in other posts, but as you see, the idea is indeed
> mathematically incoherent - unless you just mean the conditional effective
> probability which a measure distribution defines by definition. And _that_
> one, of course, leads to a finite expectation value for ones's observed age
> (that is, no immortality).

Although I have other objections to the quantum theory of immortality, I still don't see how the sampling argument refutes it.
Because (as I've said elsewhere) you don't know what a typical observer is. If the QTI is correct then a typical observer moment may
*well* be someone who is 10^32 years old wondering why all the other protons have decayed except the ones in his body. But you have
no way to find that out *except* by reaching that age yourself, because it's very very very very (keep typing "very" for another
couple of weeks) unlikely that you will meet up with a typical observer who isn't yourself.

Charles
Received on Tue Sep 11 2001 - 14:51:35 PDT