Johnathan Corgan wrote:

> If my expectation is that QTI is true and I'll be living for a very long
> time, I may adjust my financial planning accordingly.  But QTI only
> applies to my own first-person view; I'll be constantly "shedding"
> branches where I did indeed die.  If I have any financial dependents, do
> I provide for their welfare, even if they'll only exist forever outside
> my ability to interact with?

Is this in fact your expectation? And do you so plan? Forgive me if
this seems overly personal, but I'm fascinated to discover if anyone
actually acts on these beliefs.

David

> David Nyman wrote:
>
> [re: QTI]
> > This has obvious
> > implications for retirement planning in general and avoidance of the
> > more egregious cul-de-sac situations. On the other hand, short of
> > outright lunacy vis-a-vis personal safety, it also seems to imply that
> > from the 1st-person pov we are likely to come through (albeit possibly
> > in less-than-perfect shape) even apparently minimally survivable
> > situations. This struck me particularly forcibly while watching the
> > 9/11 re-runs on TV last night.
>
> It's the cul-de-sac situations that interest me.  Are there truly any?
> Are there moments of consciousness which have no logically possible
> continuation (while remaining conscious?)
>
> It seems the canonical example is surviving a nearby nuclear detonation.
>  One logical possibility is that all your constituent particles
> quantum-tunnel away from the blast in time.
>
> This would be of extremely low measure in absolute terms, but what about
> the proportion of continuations that contain you as a conscious entity?
>
> This also touches on a recent thread about "how being of low measure
> feels." If QTI is true, and I'm subject to a nuclear detonation, does it
> matter if my possible continuations are of such a low relative measure?
> Once I'm "in" them, would I feel any different and should I care?
>
> These questions may reduce to something like, "Is there a lower limit to
> the amplitude of the SWE?"
>
> If measure is infinitely divisible, then is there any natural scale to
> its absolute value?
>
> I raised a similar question on the list a few months ago when Tookie
> Wiliams was in the headlines and was eventually executed by the State of
> California.  What possible continuations exist in this situation?
>
> > In effect, we are being presented with a kind of 'yes doctor' in
> > everyday life. Do you find that these considerations affect your own
> > behaviour in any way?
>
> A very interesting question.
>
> If my expectation is that QTI is true and I'll be living for a very long
> time, I may adjust my financial planning accordingly.  But QTI only
> applies to my own first-person view; I'll be constantly "shedding"
> branches where I did indeed die.  If I have any financial dependents, do
> I provide for their welfare, even if they'll only exist forever outside
> my ability to interact with?
> 
> -Johnathan


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to