Le Samedi 28 Mai 2005 07:21, "Hal Finney" a écrit : > It is the same with all the examples. Causing more experiences of > joy is better than causing more experiences of sadness. Even with > the one person who lives from day to day, it still applies. He is not > subjectively aware of his measure changing, but if he or anyone else has > objective awareness of the circumstance, the same logic that applies in > the other examples works here as well. Give more happiness to the days > with greater measure. That makes the world a better place.
Good faith, but I see no point, no justification. > Now for an interesting twist. Our measure decreases steadily in life. > Every day we have a certain probability of dying, and our measure > decreases by that fraction. I don't understand how the measure can decrease if there exists an infinity of computations passing through a particular states (assuming you talk about comp.), meaning any particular states of "my" life is emulated/simulated/emergent creation of an infinity of computations. The problems when talking about this, an OM, is the "I", what is it in this configuration ? Does the feeling of being is just an illusion, despite it be a strong feeling ? > The reasoning in the examples above would > imply that it is better to have happiness when our measure is high, which > is when we are young. Unhappiness in old age has less impact. So if > you are putting off some happiness, do it today, don't procrastinate. > (Of course, you get much the same result in a non-multiverse model, > where putting off a reward makes you risk dying before you get to > experience it.) > > Hal Finney Like I said, it's a beautiful idea, but it is just faith. Quentin Anciaux