Except that it is possible to perform an infinite amount of computation in the big crunch due to Tipler's argument, and only a finite amount of computation with the open universe (Dyson's argument). Sort of the opposite of what you might expect...
Anyway, it looks like we're falling into a supermassive black hole right now, but we've got about 100 billion (10^11) years before we hit the event horizon. (Reported in New Scientist a couple of issue ago). Cheers Charles Goodwin wrote: > > Another thought on the Bayesian / SSA argument. Suppose (recent cosmological >discoveries aside) that we discovered that the universe > was going to fall back on itself into a big crunch in, say, 1 googol years' time. In >such a universe QTI could still operate, but > would only operate until the big crunch, which would act as a cul-de-sac. Now the >SSA would say that typically you'd "expect to find > yourself" (whatever that means) with an age around 0.5 googol, but that nevertheless >there was a finite chance that you'd "find > yourself" at age, say, 20. So assuming the SSA is valid for a moment, it wouldn't >rule out QTI (although it would make it seem > rather unlikely) if we discussed it when aged 20 in a closed universe. But it would >be *impossible* if had the same discussion in an > open universe! Odd that the average density of our branch of the multiverse should >make all the difference to a theory based on the > MWI . . . odd too (though not impossible) that the distant future history of the >universe should determine the probability of events > in the present . . . > > (BTW, would I be right in thinking that, applying the SSA to a person who "finds >himself" to be 1 year old, the chances that he'll > live to be 80 is 1/80?) > > Charles > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2001 12:35 p.m. > > To: Charles Goodwin > > Cc: "Everything-List (E-mail)" > > Subject: Re: Conventional QTI = False > > > > > > The reason for failure of Jacques' argument is no. 1) from Charles's > > list below, which he obviously thought of independently of me. I > > originally posted this at > > http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m583.html, on 10th May > > 1999. Unfortunately, I couldn't find where the orginal SSA argument > > was posted - perhaps this was via some other papers. > > > > The discussion that followed over the following year was quite > > interesting at times, and boringly technical at other times. It > > clarified a number of technical concepts, in particular what became > > known as the ASSA - which seems exactly like point 3) of Charles's > > post below: random hoppings of some "soul" between observer > > moments. Despite your protestations to the contrary Jacques, which I > > never found convincing. > > > > By contrast, "soul hopping" does not happen in the usual formulation > > of QTI, although I grant it is a feature of some computational > > theories of immortality based on infinite sized universes. > > > > I find it very droll that Jacques attempted to tar his opposition's > > theories with the very same brush that tars his own ASSA theory. > > > > The point of this is not to say that QTI is true (for which I > > retain my > > usual degree of scepticism), but simply that the Jacques Mallah SSA > > argument simply does not work as a counter argument. > > > > Cheers > > > > Charles Goodwin wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > > > >From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >I suspect you are trying to find ways of making QTI > > compatible with > > > > >Jacques ASSA based argument, when it is clear his argument fails > > > > >completely. Not that the argument is unimportant, as the > > reasons for > > > > >the failure are also interesting. > > > > > > > > What the hell are you babbling about? > > > > > > I don't know whether he's thinking about my objections to > > the SSA argument, but mine certainly *appear* to undermine it > > (at least I > > > haven't yet heard a good reason why they don't). Briefly, > > (1) the SSA argument neglects the fact that even with an > > infinitely long > > > worldline, everyone must pass through every age from 0 > > upwards, which is precisely what we observe. It also (2) > > ignores a selection > > > effect, namely that only in a thermodynamically low number > > of universes can a person who is not "QTI-old" expect to > > communicate with > > > someone who *is* (and hence 99.999999999999...% of > > discussion groups will necessarily be composed of "QTI-young" > > people). The SSA > > > argument also (3) gives the strong impression (though this > > could *perhaps* be argued away) that it relies on us treating our > > > worldlines as though we've just been "dropped" into them at > > some random point, like Billy Pilgrim; which is, of course, not what > > > happens in reality. > > > > > > Maybe there are some more technical objections to the SSA > > argument, but these are the simplest and most obvious. > > > > > > Charles > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------- > > Dr. Russell Standish Director > > High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, > > 8308 3119 (mobile) > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 > > 253119 (") > > Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Room 2075, Red Centre > http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks > International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Russell Standish Director High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile) UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (") Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------