Re: many worlds theory of immortality

From: Hal Finney <hal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 11:14:31 -0700 (PDT)

Quentin Anciaux writes:
> but by definition of what being alive means (or being conscious), which is to
> experience observer moments, even if the difference of the measure where you
> have a long life compared to where you don't survive is enormous, you can
> only experience world where you are alive...

The way I would say it is that you can only experience worlds where
you are conscious. Being alive is not enough. But really, this is a
tautology: you can only be conscious in worlds where you are conscious.
It sheds exactly zero light on any interesting questions IMO.

> And to continue, I find it very
> difficult to imagine what could mean being unconscious forever (what you
> suggest to be likely).

Yet you have already been unconscious forever, before your birth (if we
pretend/assume that the universe is infinite in both time directions).
Can you imagine that? Why can it happen in one direction but not
the other?

And what do you think of life insurance? Suppose you have young children
whom you love dearly, for whom you are the sole support, and who will
suffer greatly if you die without insurance? Would you suggest that QTI
means that you should not care about their lives in universe branches
where you do not survive, that you should act as though those branches
don't exist?

Hal Finney
Received on Tue May 10 2005 - 14:35:29 PDT