On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, at 20:32, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: > > > On 6/26/2019 7:18 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, at 00:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:24 AM Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Le lun. 24 juin 2019 à 22:00, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>>> <everything-list@googlegroups.com> a écrit : >>>>> On 6/24/2019 12:56 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>>>>> Le lun. 24 juin 2019 à 20:52, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>>>>> <everything-list@googlegroups.com> a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is "ordered"? A sample is just a sample, it has no order. If >>>>>>> quantum immortality is true, then you must exist at all ages. And a >>>>>>> sample from that distribution is unlikely to find you young. Sure, if >>>>>>> you condition on being young, then you will see young people around >>>>>>> you...because whether you are young or not you will see young people >>>>>>> around you. The problem is that YOU are most likely to be old. >>>>>> >>>>>> The thing is you had to be young first. You're talking with ASSA in >>>>>> mind. ASSA is nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> So if I go on a thousand mile journey I'm most likely to find myself >>>>> within a mile of my starting point. I think THAT's nonsense. >>>> >>>> >>>> You're not talking about mwi but a theory where moments exist by >>>> themselves and are selected randomly... That's nonsense. >>> >>> On the theory of quantum immortality, you have many more old moments than >>> young moments. >> >> I disagree. Assuming that our timelines are constantly branching and that >> for every amount of time t that we live there is some p probability that we >> die for some reasons, and worst yet, this probability increases as we get >> older, this tree will become sparser the deeper you go. >> >> If you apply self-sampling reasoning to the observer moments contained in >> that tree, even though it may contain very deep branches, the probability of >> finding oneself at such as depth becomes astronomically low. >> >> I would claim that the very assumptions that quantum immortality rests on >> make it nonsensical to restrict self-sampling to a single timeline. > > Yes, I see that point. But if you have at least one timeline that is > immortal, i.e. infinite, it can have higher measure than the sum of all those > finite timelines...unless they are infinite in number(?).
Yes, I agree that the finite timelines must be infinite in number for this to work, and I also wonder if they can be infinite in number. Wild speculation: take something like the simulation argument or Bruno's Universal Dovetailer. Perhaps the complexification process of Darwinism, then human-like intelligence and whatever next is bound to create new computational environments that start their own trees, in a fractal-like fashion. > And as I understand quantum immortality, almost every time line is infinite. I guess it depends on how you define timeline. The way I see it: you can almost always find a path from any node in the tree to infinity, but that doesn't mean that most random paths are infinite. To be more clear, I think it makes sense to apply self-sampling to observer moments rather than to personal identities (whatever that is). If the tree connects observer moments and becomes sparser the deeper you go, then if you select a random observer moment from the set of all observer moments in the tree (and if there is infinite branching not only in depth but also in breadth), then you are much more likely to find yourself near the root, even though there is infinite depth. Telmo. > > Brent > > >> >> Telmo. >> >>> If it is nonsense that this means that you are more likely to find yourself >>> old, then this is the same nonsense that underlies any account of quantum >>> phenomena in terms of self-location on some branch of the wave function or >>> the other. >>> >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTTRSng8Yi4CvD7NOynM7VWd3vgY6j6abgCZxKx8CUDOw%40mail.gmail.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTTRSng8Yi4CvD7NOynM7VWd3vgY6j6abgCZxKx8CUDOw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ccba6dbf-c2f0-4e45-bcb2-bb68657b2f6e%40www.fastmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ccba6dbf-c2f0-4e45-bcb2-bb68657b2f6e%40www.fastmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9af0c776-beec-dc58-e700-31be2e1dfd79%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9af0c776-beec-dc58-e700-31be2e1dfd79%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c3781026-3617-48f6-beb9-0c6013498692%40www.fastmail.com.
