RE: many worlds theory of immortality

From: Jonathan Colvin <jcolvin.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:51:36 -0700

>>Jonathan Colvin writes:
>>
>>>While I'm a supporter of Tegmark's Ultimate Ensemble, I
>think it is by
>>>no means clear that just because everything that can happen does
>>>happen, there will necessarily be a world where everyone becomes
>>>omniscient, or lives for ever, or spends their entire life
>dressed in a pink rabbit outfit.
>>>"Everything that can happen does happen" is not synonymous with
>>>"everything we can imagine happening does happen". Worlds where we
>>>live forever or become omniscient or are born dressed in a
>pink rabbit
>>>suit may not be *logically possible* worlds. Just as there
>is no world
>>>in the multiverse where 2+2=5, there may be no worlds in the
>>>multiverse where I live forever or spend my entire life
>dressed in a pink rabbit suit.
>>>
>>>Jonathan Colvin
>>>
>>I don't see this at all. It is not logically possible that there is a
>>world where 2+2=5 (although there are lots of worlds where everyone
>>shares the delusion that 2+2=5, and for that matter worlds where
>>everyone shares the delusion that 2+2=4 while in actual fact 2+2 does
>>equal 5), but how is it logically impossible that you live your whole
>>life in a pink rabbit suit? If anything, I would rate such
>worlds as at
>>least on a par with the ones where pigs fly, and certainly
>more common than the ones where Hell freezes over.
>>
>>--Stathis Papaioannou
>
>Brent: But what does "logically possible" mean? Logic is just some
>rules to prevent us from contradicting ourselves. Is it
>logically possible that, "Quadruplicity preens cantatas."? Is
>it logically possible that the same object be both red and
>green? Once you get beyond direct contradiction (e.g.
>"Quadruplicity does
>*not* preen cantatas") you have to invoke semantics and some
>kind of "nomologically possible". Then, so far as anyone
>knows, we're back to "physically possible" and even that is
>ill defined. The whole concept of "possible", beyond narrowly
>defined circumstances, is so ambiguous as to be worthless.

I think we're assuming Tegmark's UI here, so "physically possible" and
"logically possible" means the same thing.

Jonathan Colvin
Received on Fri Apr 15 2005 - 20:55:48 PDT