> On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 9/15/2019 6:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 13 Sep 2019, at 22:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[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] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>>> <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[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. >>> >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> >> And memory is fallible, and memory of age has no more meaning when your age >> is bigger that the nameable or describable number, which happens very soon, >> relatively, for the immortal being trying to keep track of their birthday. >> >> Immortality is when you are to old to be able to even name your age. After >> that, you have always the same age. > > Nice aphorisms. But irrelevant. The question is why don't we see almost > everyone else as younger?
That happens when we are not old enough, but also, we might always backtrack to younger people when close to death or when dying, … … may be up to something like this video below, which is an oversimplifying view (mixing G and G* all the time) of Neoplatonism, or theology close to Mechanism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6fcK_fRYaI You can get very old, and always believed that you are young, even a baby, and be right on that, just by not memorising everything. Technological immortality is a sort of egotic complacency in the Samsara, and a sort of Procrastination of Nirvana. But why not? There is something to contemplate here, but here is only an aspect of a bigger and simpler reality. And there is something to contemplate there too. With Mechanism, mathematics can give a glimpse, and evacuate some fake certainties. Nature also used some authoritative argument sometimes... Bruno > >> >> Mortality is an illusion enjoyed by the gods when tired of eternity. It is >> very long .... > > Brent > "Eternity is very long. Especially near the end." > ---- Woody Allen > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ada4773d-9699-de19-2ace-d318fc67a99c%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ada4773d-9699-de19-2ace-d318fc67a99c%40verizon.net?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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4FF1B1A5-2229-4A6B-85C3-CDFE441D0727%40ulb.ac.be.
