The answer must be a) because (and here I disagree with Jesse), all that
exists is an ensemble of isolated observer moments. The future, the past,
alternative histories, etc. they all exist in a symmetrical way. It don't
see how some states can be more ''real'' than other states. Of course, the
universe we experience seems to be real to us while alternative universes,
or past or future states of this universe are not being experienced by us.
So, you must think of yourself at any time as being randomly sampled from
the set of all possible observer moments. To get to answer b) you have to
redefine your identity so that experiencing having done the experiment
becomes a necessary part of your identity. But this is cheating because you
wouldn't say that if ''death'' were replaced by a partial memory erasure
such that the experience of having done the experiment were wiped out form
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow
> 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
> (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
> Even on this list, there are people who might say (a) above is the case
> rather than (b) or (c).
> Bruno Marchal replies:
> Are you sure?
> I was thinking of people who accept some ensemble theory such as MWI, but
> don't believe in QTI. I must admit, I find it difficult to understand how
> even a dualist might justify (a) as being correct. Would anyone care to
> Start something musical - 15 free ninemsn Music downloads!