Tom Caylor 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?
You don't. You just outlive everyone else in the (very, very tiny, and
shrinking) hyperplane of Hilbert space where quantum randomness has
contrived to save you from death (but not from disability :-( ). On
other very tiny, shrinking hyperplanes you and almost everyone else you
know has died except for one other "lucky" person. In almost all of the
Hilbert space everybody over the age of 120yrs has died.
> 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.
QM only implies we are quasi-immortal, in that our measure in the
Hilbert space of the universe always has a finite probability of being
non-zero though it becomes arbitrarily small. Actually I think even
that may be wrong. The theory of quantum gravity may imply that there
are smallest units of information (qubits?) that can be physically
instantiated and hence there is a smallest non-zero probability and
probabilities cannot become arbitrarily small without becoming zero.
Comp itself, which suggests the idea of quantum immortality, already
assumes that there is no special soul that exists over and above the
relations and interactions of neurons or atoms or some objects. It just
hypothesizes that it doesn't matter what the objects are; only their
relations and interactions.
> 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 ...
>> 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?
>>> 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
>>>> 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?
>>>> On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote:
>>>>> Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this
>>>>> 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
>>>>> live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to
>>>>> it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for
>>>>> Any thoughts/flames appreciated.
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide 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