On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:00:04PM +1000, Bruce Kellett 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. >
Once I tried to use this argument against the ASSA in a debate with Jacques Mallah. I lost. This line of argument fails. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Senior Research Fellow [email protected] Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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/20190918050411.GD2417%40zen.
