Absolutely. It doesn't matter whether or not you're immortal. I certainly don't hanker after it. But I'm still curious to know.
On your second point, I am an economist, for my sins, and I assure you we are interested in what the goals should be. > -----Original Message----- > From: Wei Dai [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 09 December 1998 20:08 > To: Higgo James > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality = deadly important > > On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 10:06:23AM -0000, Higgo James wrote: > > The word 'should' is pretty loaded. What you 'should' do is live in the > > present and be happy. But if you're an economist you might think that > you > > should invest for the greatest happiness of you in the greatest number > of > > branches in the multiverse, which is what Deutsch implies. In all > events, > > you should invest for universes where you are alive, rather than dead, > > unless you care about other people. > > But if I should live in the present and be happy, then whether or not I'm > immortal doesn't really matter, does it? The "greatest happiness in the > greatest number of branches" idea might be a start, but then I don't think > you really get the immortality effect since you end up caring a lot about > the "branches" where you die because they reduce the number of "branches" > where you're happy. On the other hand, if what you mean is "greatest > happiness in the greatest percentage of branches where you're live" then > it seems everyone should commit suicide the moment they are unhappy in the > slightest. > > In any case, all you have said is what my goals should be, not how I > can reach them (which is really what decision theory is all about). > That's why an economist wouldn't talk about happiness, because he doesn't > know you want to be happy, and he doesn't care. He just tells you whatever > you want, just apply decision theory, and he guarantees that your effort > will be optimal.
