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 < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> 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 hpco...@hpcoders.com.au 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20190918050411.GD2417%40zen.
