Still don’t understand your point/question—what do you mean by “reducing destruction to a binary event”?. Earlier I mentioned that destruction/survival isn’t binary at all.
The idea is that there is always some branches in which a version of yourself survives. Survival is not binary, there are different degrees of ‘survival’.
Yes, there are always some branches. But you can only follow one at a time. If you are in a branch in which your skull is being crushed, you are not likely to jump to a branch where you are totally fine.
There always exists some tiny subset of branches where you survive.
BTW, I don’t completely buy the argument—as I mentioned earlier, measure is important and it works out to normality of probability. If my skull is being crushed, most of the branches past that point don’t contain me. I care about the whole set, so the fact that I always survive in some tiny rare branches is not much of a consolation.
I mean it is required for quantum immortality. Other than reducing their destruction to an binary event, how can they continue on?
Still don’t understand your point/question—what do you mean by “reducing destruction to a binary event”?. Earlier I mentioned that destruction/survival isn’t binary at all.
The idea is that there is always some branches in which a version of yourself survives. Survival is not binary, there are different degrees of ‘survival’.
Yes, there are always some branches. But you can only follow one at a time. If you are in a branch in which your skull is being crushed, you are not likely to jump to a branch where you are totally fine.
There always exists some tiny subset of branches where you survive.
BTW, I don’t completely buy the argument—as I mentioned earlier, measure is important and it works out to normality of probability. If my skull is being crushed, most of the branches past that point don’t contain me. I care about the whole set, so the fact that I always survive in some tiny rare branches is not much of a consolation.