On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 16:43, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:26 PM Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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. >> > > 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. > Do you accept the idea that if there is continual duplication of the world through whatever means and each individual is mortal (the probability that he will survive a period t approaches zero as t approaches infinity), you will survive indefinitely? > -- 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%3D2ypXZa9VNUmjKvKq24U_pL4kEU%3DCG--DFT%2B%3DLJEp%3Dfx-oWw%40mail.gmail.com.
