The argument of the measure is based on ASSA and that's why it is flawed, moments are not random sampled from all possible moments, with this argument and without QI, you should have never find yourself young... But somewhere just before your death.
Quentin Le mer. 11 sept. 2019 à 08:43, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> a écrit : > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:26 PM Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 12:00, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> firstname.lastname@example.org> 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. >> > > I think the point of quantum immortality is that everyone is immortal -- > it is not that this is very unlikely because it happens to everyone. So I > am not sure what measure you think is exponentially decreasing. My personal > measure of life-years is clearly greater for periods after age 120 yr than > for the period before. Since this happens for everyone, the collective > measure over all people is likewise exponentially greater. Even if one > considers an infinite universe, with an infinite number of copies of me, > all of these are immortal on the basis of the QI argument. So, again, the > measure of old age is not decreasing with age. > > The situation is different for quantum suicide in the absence of quantum > immortality. Then one is deliberately courting death on ever run of the > scenario, and the number of survivors inevitably decreases, even if one > copy survives indefinitely. > > 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/CAFxXSLQmLkp3c9XgVs3AjciQ8MemX6Qr%2B1ND-t0eyGr1Jh5kKg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQmLkp3c9XgVs3AjciQ8MemX6Qr%2B1ND-t0eyGr1Jh5kKg%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/CAMW2kApb7f-x%2BRUuwTKk%3DTKEeBFBbGs21wOWy5Z83uAxZQ%2BOxQ%40mail.gmail.com.