On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 09:38, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, 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. >>> >> >> >> Why do you think that measure only increases with age? On an objective >> level it only decreases. >> > > As Bruno would say, "you confuse the 1p with the 1pp." I am talking about > my personal measure of the number of years I have lived. As I get older, > the number of years I have lived increases. If I live to 1000, I have lived > more years between 100 and 1000 than between 1 and 100. This is arithmetic, > after all. > > But this discussion has gone off the rails. It started as a discussion of > quantum immortality, and the arguments against this notion, even in MWI. > The arguments against QI that have been advanced are that life-threatening > events tend not to be binary or quantum, but rather we enter a period of > slow decline, due to illness or other factors. Consequently, there is no > reason for us to expect to be immortal, even in MWI. The other argument is > that if QI is true, then you would expect to be very old. This argument was > advanced by Mallah (arXiv: 0905.0187) and has not been satisfactorily > rebutted. > It is not simple arithmetic if you live to be very old that most of your measure is in your older years if you take into account all the copies. Suppose there are 10^100 copies of you under 100 years old and then all but one copy dies, but that one copy goes on to live to 1000. If you did not know how old you were and you had to guess given this information, then you would guess with near certainty that you were under 100 years old. However, you would also know with certainty that you would live to 1000, and you would not notice anything weird happening as you approached your 100th birthday. -- Stathis Papaioannou <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -- 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%3D2ypXHCsjA-Ra7Bi6FHmRt6X0hydPMgi5DqUhaQhZOwq%2B5Sw%40mail.gmail.com.
