From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:04 PM
To: Jesse Mazer
Subject: RE: many worlds theory of immortality
Before drawing drastic conclusions, like QTI, from the multiple-worlds (or
better, the relative state) interpretation of QM, it would be good to remember
that it is just one of several intepretations. Bohm's interpretation will
leave you as dead as classical physics. So will Penrose's and other modified
theories with real collapse of the wave-function. My personal favorite is
decoherence (Zurek, Joos, Zeh, et al) with a lower bound on non-zero
probabilities as outlined by Omnes.
"We should be agnostic about those things for which there is no evidence. We
should not hold beliefs merely because they gratify our desires for afterlife,
immortality, heaven, hell, etc."
--- Sir Julian Huxley
>From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 5:25 AM
>Subject: RE: many worlds theory of immortality
>Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>You're right, alas. If QTI is correct, then each of us can expect to be the
>>last conscious being in some branch of the multiverse. On the brighter
>>side, we will have probably billions or trillions of years during which
>>even the most sociable amongst us may well tire of sentient company!
>What's your reasoning? If QTI is correct, I think each of us should more
>likely expect that civilization (a community of sentient beings) will last
>as long as allowed by the laws of physics, and any being finding himself
>approaching the physical limit (whether the limit is due to increasing
>entropy, a big crunch, or a big rip) is probably more likely to find that
>everything he's experienced up until then has really been a simulation in
>some larger meta-universe than he is to find himself lasting on thanks to an
>endless string of hugely unlikely quantum events or something like that.