This fail-safe is only an actual net gain if you would rather die than see the aftermath of nuclear war, but don’t want to go through all the trouble of committing suicide manually.
The reasoning is fairly solid, though—looking back at the past, the lack of nuclear war is weaker evidence for human peacefulness if you grew up in Washington DC.
Here are 100 people. A few of them are really happy, but the rest are all fairly miserable. What to do? Kill all the miserable ones, then the average happiness shoots up!
That’s my view of quantum suicide, and just to spell it out, I think it’s pretty silly. That all 100 of the people are, in some sense, “you” does not change my view of it. Moving to New York in order to make sure that a nuclear war would kill you is like getting a DNR notice put on your bed in hospital. It may be a sensible thing to do, but if so is independent of MWI.
Note: Math on infinite sets works differently than math on finite sets. Anyway, if you have a good argument as to why measure matters here, I’d love to hear it.
I am familiar with infinite sets. As for measure, the entire QS argument is about the proportion of your measure in favourable scenarios. If you have a good argument as to why total measure does not matter but proportion of measure does, I’d love to hear it. Make sure that the answer is consistent with your implied view that total measure does matter on finite sets.
If we want to talk about majorities, most people think quantum mechanics is too complicated to worry about. Smaller fractions think that quantum mechanics means humans have souls, quantum mechanics will let you be in two places at once, and that quantum mechanics fix quantum cars.
In a rare display of majoritarianism, the “don’t worry about it” demographic is probably right. Egan’s law—it all adds up to normality. “Quantum killed” is just a more complicated way of saying “normally killed,” because quantum mechanics is how reality has always been.
If you had all the prerequisites, you would not need the argument. So I’ll give you a short overview of the point, and then just link you to some articles.
Quantum immortality is not fundamentally about quantum mechanics. It is about whether you can live forever by defining yourself as a person who doesn’t die. “You” can, but you can’t.
Now on to definitions: A Human’s Guide to Words on why we have them. The Metaethics Sequence on what we’re talking about when we say “I want to live forever.” At this point, if not earlier, you should be able to conceive of an agent that actually does believe in quantum immortality, and acts accordingly—and also an agent that doesn’t believe in quantum immortality, and acts accordingly.
Experiment: Attempt to define yourself as a rock, thus increasing your lifespan. Did it work? Why or why not?
Quantum immortality...is about whether you can live forever by defining yourself as a person who doesn’t die....Experiment: Attempt to define yourself as a rock, thus increasing your lifespan. Did it work?
The assumption of quantum immortality is that once some branches of “you” are gone, then you have to define “you” as the remaining branches. It’s about the impossibility of expanding the definition of “you”, not the possibility of expanding it.
I think there are some additional assumptions required to get you to Tenoke’s example, of dying in a nuclear blast not counting as a downside of living somewhere, because of quantum immortality.
Quantum immortality is not fundamentally about quantum mechanics. It is about whether you can live forever by defining yourself as a person who doesn’t die. “You” can, but you can’t.
That is just not correct, it is about how under some definitions of ‘you’, you don’t die, and some people use those definitions regardless of QM (pattern identity theory uses a definition compatible with quantum immortality for example).
The real issue with quantum immortality is whether measure matters, and as far as I know, this is an open question (although, I suspect there are plenty of good resources on the question which I haven’t seen)
This fail-safe is only an actual net gain if you would rather die than see the aftermath of nuclear war, but don’t want to go through all the trouble of committing suicide manually.
The reasoning is fairly solid, though—looking back at the past, the lack of nuclear war is weaker evidence for human peacefulness if you grew up in Washington DC.
Well, not really if you see branching in MW the way that most people seem to.
What is that way?
Here are 100 people. A few of them are really happy, but the rest are all fairly miserable. What to do? Kill all the miserable ones, then the average happiness shoots up!
That’s my view of quantum suicide, and just to spell it out, I think it’s pretty silly. That all 100 of the people are, in some sense, “you” does not change my view of it. Moving to New York in order to make sure that a nuclear war would kill you is like getting a DNR notice put on your bed in hospital. It may be a sensible thing to do, but if so is independent of MWI.
Note: Math on infinite sets works differently than math on finite sets. Anyway, if you have a good argument as to why measure matters here, I’d love to hear it.
I am familiar with infinite sets. As for measure, the entire QS argument is about the proportion of your measure in favourable scenarios. If you have a good argument as to why total measure does not matter but proportion of measure does, I’d love to hear it. Make sure that the answer is consistent with your implied view that total measure does matter on finite sets.
I don’t have a very good argument for either side, which is why I am not discounting one or the other.
If we want to talk about majorities, most people think quantum mechanics is too complicated to worry about. Smaller fractions think that quantum mechanics means humans have souls, quantum mechanics will let you be in two places at once, and that quantum mechanics fix quantum cars.
In a rare display of majoritarianism, the “don’t worry about it” demographic is probably right. Egan’s law—it all adds up to normality. “Quantum killed” is just a more complicated way of saying “normally killed,” because quantum mechanics is how reality has always been.
Good job on arguing against majoritarianism, but you haven’t provided any arguments as to why the view that I attributed to a majority is wrong.
If you had all the prerequisites, you would not need the argument. So I’ll give you a short overview of the point, and then just link you to some articles.
Quantum immortality is not fundamentally about quantum mechanics. It is about whether you can live forever by defining yourself as a person who doesn’t die. “You” can, but you can’t.
Links: You could learn some quantum mechanics. Then look into where the relative state interpretation (MWI) comes from, by reading Everett’s quite accessible paper. Key thing that you will understand after this: probability is a measure, and norm-squared measure is all there is. Look into the foundations of VNM decision theory, but maybe also temper it by reading Savage’s decision theory. Now you should understand how quantum mechanics fits into VNM decision theory by providing a measure. At this point it all adds up to normality—you make the same decisions using any interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Now on to definitions: A Human’s Guide to Words on why we have them. The Metaethics Sequence on what we’re talking about when we say “I want to live forever.” At this point, if not earlier, you should be able to conceive of an agent that actually does believe in quantum immortality, and acts accordingly—and also an agent that doesn’t believe in quantum immortality, and acts accordingly.
Experiment: Attempt to define yourself as a rock, thus increasing your lifespan. Did it work? Why or why not?
The assumption of quantum immortality is that once some branches of “you” are gone, then you have to define “you” as the remaining branches. It’s about the impossibility of expanding the definition of “you”, not the possibility of expanding it.
I think there are some additional assumptions required to get you to Tenoke’s example, of dying in a nuclear blast not counting as a downside of living somewhere, because of quantum immortality.
That is just not correct, it is about how under some definitions of ‘you’, you don’t die, and some people use those definitions regardless of QM (pattern identity theory uses a definition compatible with quantum immortality for example).
The real issue with quantum immortality is whether measure matters, and as far as I know, this is an open question (although, I suspect there are plenty of good resources on the question which I haven’t seen)