RE: many worlds theory of immortality

From: Hal Finney <hal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 20:55:00 -0700 (PDT)

Jonathan Colvin writes:
> That's putting it mildly. I was thinking that it is more likely that a
> universe tunnels out of a black hole that "just randomly" happens to contain
> your precise brain state at that moment, and for all of future eternity. But
> the majority of these random universes will be precisely that; random. In
> most cases you will then find that your immortal experience is of a purely
> random universe, which is likely a good definition of "hell".

But it's not all that unlikely that someone in the world, unbeknownst
to you, has invented a cure; whereas for a universe with your exact
mind in it to be created purely de novo is astronomically unlikely.

Look at the number of atoms in your brain, 10^25 or some such, and imagine
how many arrangments there are of those atoms that aren't you, compared
to the relative few which are you. The odds against that happening by
chance are beyond comprehension. Whereas the odds of some lucky accident
saving you as you are about to die are more like lottery-winner long,
like one in a billion, not astronomically long, like one in a googleplex.

Especially if you accept that it is possible in principle for medicine
to give us an unlimited healthy lifespan, then all you really need to do
is to live in a universe where that medical technology is discovered,
and then avoid accidents. Neither one seems all that improbable from
the perspective of people living in our circumstances today. It's harder
to see how a cave man could look forward to a long life span.

I should add that I don't believe in QTI, I don't believe that we are
guaranteed to experience such outcomes. I prefer the observer-moment
concept in which we are more likely to experience observer-moments where
we are young and living within a normal lifespan than ones where we are
at a very advanced age due to miraculous luck.

Hal Finney
Received on Mon May 09 2005 - 23:57:26 PDT