I think the probability of you popping into existence again is (1) very small and (2) depends on how you define your “self.” Would you consider an atom-for-atom copy of you to be “you”? How about an uploaded copy? etc. The simple fact is that physicists have constructed a very simple model for the universe that hasn’t been wrong yet and, so, is very likely to be correct in the vast majority of situations—your existence should be one of them. Faith in the accepted model of the universe constructed by modern physicists can be justified by any reasonable prior coupled with Bayes’ theorem. Thus, you can be extremely (99.999%+) that you won’t pop into existence with infinite suffering (technically 0 and 1 aren’t commonly accepted as probabilities on LessWrong).
Moving on, you will almost certainly not live forever (suffering or otherwise), because, quite simply, the universe will experience heat-death at some point. Justification for this belief is, similarly, based on Bayesian updating.
As a side-note. You say
Similar to what happens if there is no free will and thus nothing matters since no change is possible?
I’m not sure free will is a meaningful mental category when used in philosophy. If we lived in a deterministic universe, I, personally, would still believe that life had value. Ultimately, our universe is either deterministic or it isn’t, but I fail to see why this would have any important philosophical implications. Why would it be good if our universe contained randomness?
You might consider reading “Possibility and Could-ness” if you haven’t done so for an alternative perspective on what free will actually is.
I’m not sure free will is a meaningful mental category when used in philosophy. If we lived in a deterministic universe, I, personally, would still believe that life had value. Ultimately, our universe is either deterministic or it isn’t, but I fail to see why this would have any important philosophical implications. Why would it be good if our universe contained randomness?
The prospect of influencing the future doesn’t excite you?
Keep in mind the big bang, an expanding universe, eventual heat death… these are all theories. Just theories. We don’t know for certain if any of them are true or not. Whether a majority or minority of scientists agree or disagree about those theories is not proof. It’s just a measure of opinion. And history is full of examples when the majority is wrong.
I often believe differently than the majority. In the three theories above, I disagree with all of them. I don’t care to ram my beliefs down anyone else’s throat. But I wish “We just don’t know for sure” was not such a scary statement to so many people.
As I’m writing this I was thinking about the infinite suffering concept. I think part of consciousness requires the tuning out of bias. If you were in constant pain, your nervous system would tune out the constant, steady background level of pain and you’d only perceive the variation around that.
“The fire and brimstone is especially nontoxic today, don’t you think?”
Buy that georgeous, postcard-quality cabin right on the beach in amongst the palm trees. Three months later you will find it absolutely impossible to perceive the beauty anymore.
I think the probability of you popping into existence again is (1) very small and (2) depends on how you define your “self.” Would you consider an atom-for-atom copy of you to be “you”? How about an uploaded copy? etc. The simple fact is that physicists have constructed a very simple model for the universe that hasn’t been wrong yet and, so, is very likely to be correct in the vast majority of situations—your existence should be one of them. Faith in the accepted model of the universe constructed by modern physicists can be justified by any reasonable prior coupled with Bayes’ theorem. Thus, you can be extremely (99.999%+) that you won’t pop into existence with infinite suffering (technically 0 and 1 aren’t commonly accepted as probabilities on LessWrong).
Moving on, you will almost certainly not live forever (suffering or otherwise), because, quite simply, the universe will experience heat-death at some point. Justification for this belief is, similarly, based on Bayesian updating.
As a side-note. You say
I’m not sure free will is a meaningful mental category when used in philosophy. If we lived in a deterministic universe, I, personally, would still believe that life had value. Ultimately, our universe is either deterministic or it isn’t, but I fail to see why this would have any important philosophical implications. Why would it be good if our universe contained randomness?
You might consider reading “Possibility and Could-ness” if you haven’t done so for an alternative perspective on what free will actually is.
The prospect of influencing the future doesn’t excite you?
Keep in mind the big bang, an expanding universe, eventual heat death… these are all theories. Just theories. We don’t know for certain if any of them are true or not. Whether a majority or minority of scientists agree or disagree about those theories is not proof. It’s just a measure of opinion. And history is full of examples when the majority is wrong.
I often believe differently than the majority. In the three theories above, I disagree with all of them. I don’t care to ram my beliefs down anyone else’s throat. But I wish “We just don’t know for sure” was not such a scary statement to so many people.
As I’m writing this I was thinking about the infinite suffering concept. I think part of consciousness requires the tuning out of bias. If you were in constant pain, your nervous system would tune out the constant, steady background level of pain and you’d only perceive the variation around that.
“The fire and brimstone is especially nontoxic today, don’t you think?”
Buy that georgeous, postcard-quality cabin right on the beach in amongst the palm trees. Three months later you will find it absolutely impossible to perceive the beauty anymore.