= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Tenoke comments on Open thread, 9-15 June 2014 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (239)
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)