Re: Fwd: why is death painful? - Validity and Morality of QS
--part1_2c1021c2.248eb3c5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-06-08 02:04:53 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think we are touching on the BIG PROBLEM that will concern the ethicisists of the 21th century and beyond. How to give meaning to physical life and counter QS in view of the MWI. For if we do not find a reason to counter QS the future of the human race is doomed (in most worlds) if the concept of measure can be quantified in any ways. The problem of QS and Quantum Immortality is major and, as the reality of Quantum theory trickles down into the general public and becomes familiar, these issues will probably become the most important moral dilemma of the future. Most recent posts have only been preaching to the choir and I am one of them. We need all the devil's advocates we can find. Are we or are we not immortal? Is QS Good or Evil? Do we want to become big fish in a small pond or small fish in a big pond? (I.e., restrict the measure of the world we perceive for our own benefit, OR allow ourselves to propagate as much as possible through the MW and suffer the strings of outrageous fortune. Let's hear some strong clear and convincing arguments opposing QS. Jacques Mallah were are you? Why is this important? It is clear that QS as a meme has low survival value, and so would not propagate through the whole human population. Most of the humans that share our own here and now will believe that suicide is not worth it (for whatever reason). Those that do will die in our universe and therefore be irrelevant to it, and have little influence over what the bulk of the population believes. Dr. Russell StandishDirector High Performance Computing Support Unit, University of NSW Phone 9385 6967 Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 7123 Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
Returned mail: User unknown
The original message was received at Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:55:31 -0700 from smartlst@localhost - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Transcript of session follows - ... while talking to mail2.hotmail.com.: RCPT To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable 550 [EMAIL PROTECTED] User unknown Reporting-MTA: dns; mx1.eskimo.com Arrival-Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:55:31 -0700 Final-Recipient: RFC822; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Action: failed Status: 2.0.0 Remote-MTA: DNS; mail2.hotmail.com Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 250 Requested mail action okay, completed Last-Attempt-Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:20:05 -0700 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id UAA27435; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:55:31 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:55:31 -0700 From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: why is death painful? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 13:57:04 +1000 (EST) Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from [EMAIL PROTECTED] at Jun 7, 99 11:24:49 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: IqeU23.0.Yi6.pMUNt@mx1 Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailing-List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] archive/latest/704 X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: list Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q Wars Episode 10^9: the Phantom Measure
Higgo James wrote:
Well said, but I'm not sure your definition of 'I' holds. There are
infinitely many 'Chris Maloneys' born in a hospital of the same name of
parents of the same name... etc etc etc who are in no way connected with
you. Besides, these identifiers are all social naming conventions. And
perhaps you'll change your name tomorrow.
Okay, you're right. I was just trying to define a root of the tree
somewhere. Perhaps I should have said, go back in time along the
thread that me-here-now is on, to the exact time of my birth, and
then define that thing as C(0,{}). There are still conceivably
problems with that, if you consider that worlds might fuse as well
as split, then there's no unique path back in time.
But another point I was trying to make, and which you emphasize when
you say perhaps you'll change your name tomorrow, is that there
are people walking around who are me in the sense that they are in
the set C(t,B), but who have very little resemblance to me-here-now.
So you have to be careful when using terms like me, or even
me-like objects.
--
Chris Maloney
http://www.chrismaloney.com
Knowledge is good
-- Emil Faber
