On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 12:00, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 9/10/2019 4:30 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> > Another argument that has been given here before is that if quantum >> > immortality is true, then we should expect to see a number of people >> > who are considerably older than the normal life expectancy -- and we >> > do not see people who are two or three hundred years old. Even if the >> > probabilities are very low, there have been an awful lot of people >> > born within the last 500 or so years -- some must have survived on our >> > branch if this scenario is true. >> >> My argument was that each of us should find ourselves to be much older >> than even the oldest people we know. > > > That is probably the best single argument against quantum immortality: if > QI is true, then the measure of our lifetime after one reaches a normal > lifetime is infinitely greater than the measure before age , say, 120 yr. > So if one finds oneself younger than 120 years, QI is false, and if MWI is > still considered to be true, there must be another argument why MWI does > not imply QI. > The measure of our lifetime when young might be larger than the measure when very old if surviving as a very old person becomes exponentially less likely. In any case, this is not relevant if it is given that there will be a very old version of you in some corner of the world, whether distant in time, space or in a parallel universe. You cannot avoid surviving to become this version if it actually exists. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypW3Nz0gZBF%2BqO3OYq%3DQyPJh_COrJmGGEQM0ssmWn2cf9g%40mail.gmail.com.
