I guess I could see that it could be consistent that from each of our
perspectives eventually we are the only one left in the mulitverse, if
we were all cut-off from each other, essentially in separate universes
or histories. But with all of the appealing aspects (that have been
brought up in many contexts by many people in history) of an ontology
based on relations rather than substance, I would think that a
multiverse that ends in isolation would be a rather disappointing
(seemingly contrary) conclusion of that ontology. Plus, I certainly
wouldn't want to "live" like that. And I'd even argue that from a
relational ontology perspective that would be equivalent to non-
existence. How about an immortal life in relation to other persons?
On Jun 6, 2:13 pm, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assuming comp, or quantum immortality, is it true that from my
> perspective I will outlive everyone else, and from your perspective
> you will outlive everyone else? If so, how can this be?
> One consistent configuration is that we are all immortal and that part
> of this immortal being is something that is outside of what we can
> observe scientifically, including other persons' deaths.
> On Jun 6, 1:03 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Assuming comp, the reason is that the probability measure on your comp
> > continuations has to be restricted on the comp histories where you
> > survive. Absolute death cannot be a first person experience. death of
> > a 3-person is relative and can be lived from a 1-person perspective.
> > Now, what is 1-person immortality? Very difficult question. The
> > (lobian) machine can make sense, apparently, of a sentence like that:
> > yesterday I have been immortal, but today I am mortal. The difficulty
> > is more in the fusion/amnesia than in the fission ...
> > Bruno
> > PS Brent is right. Some annuity contract can be used for making money
> > via comp or quantum suicide, as far as the company handling that
> > annuity is robust enough. (Always making all the default assumptions:
> > obviously (?) science per se is totally agnostic about any first
> > person experience, knowledge ...)
> > On 06 Jun 2008, at 01:44, Tom Caylor wrote:
> > > Why is it that from my first person perspective other people die?
> > > Perhaps a different question:
> > > Why is it that from your first person perspective other people die?
> > > Tom
> > > On Jun 5, 8:27 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Hi Lawrence, welcome,
> > >> You have to be more precise on the betting procedure. You will win
> > >> the
> > >> bet against people who, from your personal point of view, will most
> > >> probably be dead at the time. How do you intent to recover the money?
> > >> Bruno
> > >> On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote:
> > >>> Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this
> > >>> is
> > >>> my first post to the group.
> > >>> It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some
> > >>> reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I
> > >>> will
> > >>> live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to
> > >>> collect
> > >>> it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for
> > >>> it!
> > >>> Any thoughts/flames appreciated.
> > >>> Lawrence
> > >>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
> >http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/-Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at