I think I can prove that QTI as intepreted in this list is false, I'll post the proof in a new thread.
The only version of QTI that makes sense to me is this: All possible states exist "out there" in the multiverse. The observer moments are timeless objects so, in a certain sense, QTI is true. But then you must consider surviving with memory loss. E.g., if I'm diagnosed with a terminal illness, then there is still a branch in which I haven't been diagnosed with that illness. If I'm 100 years old, then I still have copies that are only 20 years old etc. etc. Saibal ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johnathan Corgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 7:43 PM Subject: Re: Russell's book > > David Nyman wrote: > > [re: QTI] > > This has obvious > > implications for retirement planning in general and avoidance of the > > more egregious cul-de-sac situations. On the other hand, short of > > outright lunacy vis-a-vis personal safety, it also seems to imply that > > from the 1st-person pov we are likely to come through (albeit possibly > > in less-than-perfect shape) even apparently minimally survivable > > situations. This struck me particularly forcibly while watching the > > 9/11 re-runs on TV last night. > > It's the cul-de-sac situations that interest me. Are there truly any? > Are there moments of consciousness which have no logically possible > continuation (while remaining conscious?) > > It seems the canonical example is surviving a nearby nuclear detonation. > One logical possibility is that all your constituent particles > quantum-tunnel away from the blast in time. > > This would be of extremely low measure in absolute terms, but what about > the proportion of continuations that contain you as a conscious entity? > > This also touches on a recent thread about "how being of low measure > feels." If QTI is true, and I'm subject to a nuclear detonation, does it > matter if my possible continuations are of such a low relative measure? > Once I'm "in" them, would I feel any different and should I care? > > These questions may reduce to something like, "Is there a lower limit to > the amplitude of the SWE?" > > If measure is infinitely divisible, then is there any natural scale to > its absolute value? > > I raised a similar question on the list a few months ago when Tookie > Wiliams was in the headlines and was eventually executed by the State of > California. What possible continuations exist in this situation? > > > In effect, we are being presented with a kind of 'yes doctor' in > > everyday life. Do you find that these considerations affect your own > > behaviour in any way? > > A very interesting question. > > If my expectation is that QTI is true and I'll be living for a very long > time, I may adjust my financial planning accordingly. But QTI only > applies to my own first-person view; I'll be constantly "shedding" > branches where I did indeed die. If I have any financial dependents, do > I provide for their welfare, even if they'll only exist forever outside > my ability to interact with? > > -Johnathan > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---