On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:28 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 9/13/2019 10:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 6:38 PM 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. >> > > I see. This reasoning works only under the assumption that finding > yourself in any particular year across your infinite lifespan is > equiprobable (i.e. you can ignore the effects of the number or measure of > the various yous in other branches). This is what I thought you mean by > measure, in terms of how to calculate probabilities / weights of the > various branches. > > >> >> 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. >> > > I don't see how that last sentence follows. It is true MWI doesn't > guarantee we should expect to always survive in the same condition, but it > does guarantee we should survive in some form. > > > But what does "we" refer to. Are you saying Jason, with the memories he > has at this moment, will always have a successor in the future. Or are > you saying there'll always be a Jason that shares my childhood memories or > my memories of last year when that lightning bolt just missed me. > It depends on your definition of personal identity. I think in this case, all of them might work. There is both bodily/physical and mental/psychological continuity under MWI. There will always exist someone remembering my current state as their previous state, and there is physical/bodily continuity, or viewed from the other direction, with the mind as a program, there is always some branch that realizes a consistent extension of that computation. > > > >> The other argument is that if QI is true, then you would expect to be >> very old. >> > > We only know we are very old if our memories accumulate without limit, but > MWI does not guarantee persistence of memory. It also follows from this > that to know one is immortal (has lived an infinite number of years) > requires an infinitely large brain and memory capacity. > > > I don't have to remember everything that happened over 80yrs to know I'm > 80yrs old. In fact I only need to remember my birthday. > > To know your birthday requires log(n) bits, which goes to infinity as n goes to infinity. Without an ever expanding memory, you are limited to experiencing at most M^2 states, where M is your memory capacity in bits. If M is finite, then infinite years don't matter, you will begin to revisit previous states. Jason -- 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/CA%2BBCJUhjx0SXd5h0x%3DhQhG%2BruoHdFOhKAhmqyatVFcvxnfOjnw%40mail.gmail.com.
