Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow

From: George Levy <glevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:12:58 -0800

Please disregard previous post. The b and c cases were inverted.

> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>>
>> Stathis Papaioannou writes:
>> If on the basis of a coin toss the world splits, and in one branch I
>> am instantaneously killed while in the other I continue living, there
>> are several possible ways this might be interpreted from the 1st
>> person viewpoint:
>>
>> (a) Pr(I live) = Pr(I die) = 0.5
>>
>> (b) Pr(I live) = 1, Pr(I die) = 0
>>
>> (c) Pr(I live) = 0, Pr(I die) = 1
>
>
>
> Your example underscores the need for interpreting Pr as a relative
> concept ( this is my favorite point of view):
> b) is A observing A. It is seen through the first person A who is
> killed in one branch and live in another branch. This is called the
> first person on this list.
> a) is B observing A: It is seen through a first person B who witnesses
> the event hapenning to A but lives in both branches. His point of view
> is called the third person on this list:
> c) is C observing A. It is seen through a first person C who
> experiences the complement events of A. He lives when A dies and vice
> versa. The probability that he will see A live is 0. We do not have a
> name for this point of view on this list but I could suggest "the
> complement first person."
>
> Thus all answers are correct depending on your relative point of view.
>
> George
>
>
>
Received on Sun Nov 27 2005 - 02:15:15 PST