Making money via quantum suicide

[Lawrence-29]

Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this is
my first post to the group.

It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some
reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I will
live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to collect
it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for
it!

Any thoughts/flames appreciated.

Lawrence
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Lawrence, welcome,

You have to be more precise on the betting procedure. You will win the  
bet against people who, from your personal point of view, will most  
probably be dead at the time. How do you intent to recover the money?

Bruno


On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote:

>
> Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this is
> my first post to the group.
>
> It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some
> reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I will
> live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to collect
> it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for
> it!
>
> Any thoughts/flames appreciated.
>
> Lawrence
> >

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Brent Meeker-2]

Just buy an annuity that starts paying out when you're 80 (they're cheap).
  The annuity sellers are essentially betting you wont' live to much beyond
that - and they're almost always right.

Brent Meeker

Bruno Marchal wrote:

> Hi Lawrence, welcome,
>
> You have to be more precise on the betting procedure. You will win the  
> bet against people who, from your personal point of view, will most  
> probably be dead at the time. How do you intent to recover the money?
>
> Bruno
>
>
> On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote:
>
>> Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this is
>> my first post to the group.
>>
>> It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some
>> reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I will
>> live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to collect
>> it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for
>> it!
>>
>> Any thoughts/flames appreciated.
>>
>> Lawrence
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Tom Caylor-2]

Why is it that from my first person perspective other people die?

Perhaps a different question:
Why is it that from your first person perspective other people die?

Tom

On Jun 5, 8:27 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@...> wrote:

> Hi Lawrence, welcome,
>
> You have to be more precise on the betting procedure. You will win the  
> bet against people who, from your personal point of view, will most  
> probably be dead at the time. How do you intent to recover the money?
>
> Bruno
>
> On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote:
>
>
>
> > Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this is
> > my first post to the group.
>
> > It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some
> > reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I will
> > live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to collect
> > it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for
> > it!
>
> > Any thoughts/flames appreciated.
>
> > Lawrence
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Bruno Marchal]

Assuming comp, the reason is that the probability measure on your comp  
continuations has to be restricted on the comp histories where you  
survive. Absolute death cannot be a first person experience. death of  
a 3-person is relative and can be lived from a 1-person perspective.
Now, what is 1-person immortality? Very difficult question. The  
(lobian) machine can make sense, apparently, of a sentence like that:  
yesterday I have been immortal, but today I am mortal. The difficulty  
is more in the fusion/amnesia than in the fission ...

Bruno

PS Brent is right. Some annuity contract can be used for making money  
via comp or quantum suicide, as far as the company handling that  
annuity is robust enough. (Always making all the default assumptions:  
obviously (?) science per se is totally agnostic about any first  
person experience, knowledge ...)


On 06 Jun 2008, at 01:44, Tom Caylor wrote:

>
> Why is it that from my first person perspective other people die?
>
> Perhaps a different question:
> Why is it that from your first person perspective other people die?
>
> Tom
>
> On Jun 5, 8:27 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@...> wrote:
>> Hi Lawrence, welcome,
>>
>> You have to be more precise on the betting procedure. You will win  
>> the
>> bet against people who, from your personal point of view, will most
>> probably be dead at the time. How do you intent to recover the money?
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this  
>>> is
>>> my first post to the group.
>>
>>> It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some
>>> reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I  
>>> will
>>> live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to  
>>> collect
>>> it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for
>>> it!
>>
>>> Any thoughts/flames appreciated.
>>
>>> Lawrence
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
> >

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Tom Caylor-2]

Assuming comp, or quantum immortality, is it true that from my
perspective I will outlive everyone else, and from your perspective
you will outlive everyone else?  If so, how can this be?

One consistent configuration is that we are all immortal and that part
of this immortal being is something that is outside of what we can
observe scientifically, including other persons' deaths.

Tom

On Jun 6, 1:03 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@...> wrote:

> Assuming comp, the reason is that the probability measure on your comp  
> continuations has to be restricted on the comp histories where you  
> survive. Absolute death cannot be a first person experience. death of  
> a 3-person is relative and can be lived from a 1-person perspective.
> Now, what is 1-person immortality? Very difficult question. The  
> (lobian) machine can make sense, apparently, of a sentence like that:  
> yesterday I have been immortal, but today I am mortal. The difficulty  
> is more in the fusion/amnesia than in the fission ...
>
> Bruno
>
> PS Brent is right. Some annuity contract can be used for making money  
> via comp or quantum suicide, as far as the company handling that  
> annuity is robust enough. (Always making all the default assumptions:  
> obviously (?) science per se is totally agnostic about any first  
> person experience, knowledge ...)
>
> On 06 Jun 2008, at 01:44, Tom Caylor wrote:
>
> > Why is it that from my first person perspective other people die?
>
> > Perhaps a different question:
> > Why is it that from your first person perspective other people die?
>
> > Tom
>
> > On Jun 5, 8:27 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@...> wrote:
> >> Hi Lawrence, welcome,
>
> >> You have to be more precise on the betting procedure. You will win  
> >> the
> >> bet against people who, from your personal point of view, will most
> >> probably be dead at the time. How do you intent to recover the money?
>
> >> Bruno
>
> >> On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote:
>
> >>> Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this  
> >>> is
> >>> my first post to the group.
>
> >>> It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some
> >>> reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I  
> >>> will
> >>> live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to  
> >>> collect
> >>> it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for
> >>> it!
>
> >>> Any thoughts/flames appreciated.
>
> >>> Lawrence
>
> >>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text -
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Tom Caylor-2]

I guess I could see that it could be consistent that from each of our
perspectives eventually we are the only one left in the mulitverse, if
we were all cut-off from each other, essentially in separate universes
or histories.  But with all of the appealing aspects (that have been
brought up in many contexts by many people in history) of an ontology
based on relations rather than substance, I would think that a
multiverse that ends in isolation would be a rather disappointing
(seemingly contrary) conclusion of that ontology.  Plus, I certainly
wouldn't want to "live" like that.  And I'd even argue that from a
relational ontology perspective that would be equivalent to non-
existence.  How about an immortal life in relation to other persons?

Tom

On Jun 6, 2:13 pm, Tom Caylor <daddycay...@...> wrote:

> Assuming comp, or quantum immortality, is it true that from my
> perspective I will outlive everyone else, and from your perspective
> you will outlive everyone else?  If so, how can this be?
>
> One consistent configuration is that we are all immortal and that part
> of this immortal being is something that is outside of what we can
> observe scientifically, including other persons' deaths.
>
> Tom
>
> On Jun 6, 1:03 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Assuming comp, the reason is that the probability measure on your comp  
> > continuations has to be restricted on the comp histories where you  
> > survive. Absolute death cannot be a first person experience. death of  
> > a 3-person is relative and can be lived from a 1-person perspective.
> > Now, what is 1-person immortality? Very difficult question. The  
> > (lobian) machine can make sense, apparently, of a sentence like that:  
> > yesterday I have been immortal, but today I am mortal. The difficulty  
> > is more in the fusion/amnesia than in the fission ...
>
> > Bruno
>
> > PS Brent is right. Some annuity contract can be used for making money  
> > via comp or quantum suicide, as far as the company handling that  
> > annuity is robust enough. (Always making all the default assumptions:  
> > obviously (?) science per se is totally agnostic about any first  
> > person experience, knowledge ...)
>
> > On 06 Jun 2008, at 01:44, Tom Caylor wrote:
>
> > > Why is it that from my first person perspective other people die?
>
> > > Perhaps a different question:
> > > Why is it that from your first person perspective other people die?
>
> > > Tom
>
> > > On Jun 5, 8:27 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@...> wrote:
> > >> Hi Lawrence, welcome,
>
> > >> You have to be more precise on the betting procedure. You will win  
> > >> the
> > >> bet against people who, from your personal point of view, will most
> > >> probably be dead at the time. How do you intent to recover the money?
>
> > >> Bruno
>
> > >> On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote:
>
> > >>> Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this  
> > >>> is
> > >>> my first post to the group.
>
> > >>> It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some
> > >>> reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I  
> > >>> will
> > >>> live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to  
> > >>> collect
> > >>> it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for
> > >>> it!
>
> > >>> Any thoughts/flames appreciated.
>
> > >>> Lawrence
>
> > >>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
> >http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/-Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Brent Meeker-2]

Tom Caylor wrote:
> Assuming comp, or quantum immortality, is it true that from my
> perspective I will outlive everyone else, and from your perspective
> you will outlive everyone else?  If so, how can this be?
>  

You don't.  You just outlive everyone else in the (very, very tiny, and
shrinking) hyperplane of Hilbert space where quantum randomness has
contrived to save you from death (but not from disability  :-(   ).  On
other very tiny, shrinking hyperplanes you and almost everyone else  you
know has died except for one other "lucky" person.  In almost all of the
Hilbert space everybody over the age of 120yrs has died.

> One consistent configuration is that we are all immortal and that part
> of this immortal being is something that is outside of what we can
> observe scientifically, including other persons' deaths.
>  
QM only implies we are quasi-immortal, in that our measure in the
Hilbert space of the universe always has a finite probability of being
non-zero though it becomes arbitrarily small.  Actually I think even
that may be wrong.  The theory of quantum gravity may imply that there
are smallest units of information (qubits?) that can be physically
instantiated and hence there is a smallest non-zero probability and
probabilities cannot become arbitrarily small without becoming zero.

Comp itself, which suggests the idea of quantum immortality, already
assumes that there is no special soul that exists over and above the
relations and interactions of neurons or atoms or some objects.  It just
hypothesizes that it doesn't matter what the objects are; only their
relations and interactions.

Brent Meeker

> Tom
>
> On Jun 6, 1:03 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@...> wrote:
>  
>> Assuming comp, the reason is that the probability measure on your comp  
>> continuations has to be restricted on the comp histories where you  
>> survive. Absolute death cannot be a first person experience. death of  
>> a 3-person is relative and can be lived from a 1-person perspective.
>> Now, what is 1-person immortality? Very difficult question. The  
>> (lobian) machine can make sense, apparently, of a sentence like that:  
>> yesterday I have been immortal, but today I am mortal. The difficulty  
>> is more in the fusion/amnesia than in the fission ...
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> PS Brent is right. Some annuity contract can be used for making money  
>> via comp or quantum suicide, as far as the company handling that  
>> annuity is robust enough. (Always making all the default assumptions:  
>> obviously (?) science per se is totally agnostic about any first  
>> person experience, knowledge ...)
>>
>> On 06 Jun 2008, at 01:44, Tom Caylor wrote:
>>
>>    
>>> Why is it that from my first person perspective other people die?
>>>      
>>> Perhaps a different question:
>>> Why is it that from your first person perspective other people die?
>>>      
>>> Tom
>>>      
>>> On Jun 5, 8:27 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@...> wrote:
>>>      
>>>> Hi Lawrence, welcome,
>>>>        
>>>> You have to be more precise on the betting procedure. You will win  
>>>> the
>>>> bet against people who, from your personal point of view, will most
>>>> probably be dead at the time. How do you intent to recover the money?
>>>>        
>>>> Bruno
>>>>        
>>>> On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote:
>>>>        
>>>>> Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this  
>>>>> is
>>>>> my first post to the group.
>>>>>          
>>>>> It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some
>>>>> reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I  
>>>>> will
>>>>> live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to  
>>>>> collect
>>>>> it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for
>>>>> it!
>>>>>          
>>>>> Any thoughts/flames appreciated.
>>>>>          
>>>>> Lawrence
>>>>>          
>>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>>>        
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>    
> >
>
>  

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Brent Meeker-2]

Tom Caylor wrote:

> I guess I could see that it could be consistent that from each of our
> perspectives eventually we are the only one left in the mulitverse, if
> we were all cut-off from each other, essentially in separate universes
> or histories.  But with all of the appealing aspects (that have been
> brought up in many contexts by many people in history) of an ontology
> based on relations rather than substance, I would think that a
> multiverse that ends in isolation would be a rather disappointing
> (seemingly contrary) conclusion of that ontology.  Plus, I certainly
> wouldn't want to "live" like that.  And I'd even argue that from a
> relational ontology perspective that would be equivalent to non-
> existence.  

I think you'd be right in that.  You can imagine surviving thru quantum
luck with other persons, even a whole Earth full of people.  It's just
that the more you imagine adding onto survival simplicipter the less
probable that outcome.  I suspect there's a lower bound to such
probabilities and your luck runs out at some point.  But of course in
Bruno's ontology based on arithmetic infinities and infinitesimals are
possible.
> How about an immortal life in relation to other persons?
>  

We don't see any quasi-immortal people (e.g. >150yrs old) so it's very
improbable.

Brent Meeker

> Tom
>
> On Jun 6, 2:13 pm, Tom Caylor <daddycay...@...> wrote:
>  
>> Assuming comp, or quantum immortality, is it true that from my
>> perspective I will outlive everyone else, and from your perspective
>> you will outlive everyone else?  If so, how can this be?
>>
>> One consistent configuration is that we are all immortal and that part
>> of this immortal being is something that is outside of what we can
>> observe scientifically, including other persons' deaths.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On Jun 6, 1:03 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>> Assuming comp, the reason is that the probability measure on your comp  
>>> continuations has to be restricted on the comp histories where you  
>>> survive. Absolute death cannot be a first person experience. death of  
>>> a 3-person is relative and can be lived from a 1-person perspective.
>>> Now, what is 1-person immortality? Very difficult question. The  
>>> (lobian) machine can make sense, apparently, of a sentence like that:  
>>> yesterday I have been immortal, but today I am mortal. The difficulty  
>>> is more in the fusion/amnesia than in the fission ...
>>>      
>>> Bruno
>>>      
>>> PS Brent is right. Some annuity contract can be used for making money  
>>> via comp or quantum suicide, as far as the company handling that  
>>> annuity is robust enough. (Always making all the default assumptions:  
>>> obviously (?) science per se is totally agnostic about any first  
>>> person experience, knowledge ...)
>>>      
>>> On 06 Jun 2008, at 01:44, Tom Caylor wrote:
>>>      
>>>> Why is it that from my first person perspective other people die?
>>>>        
>>>> Perhaps a different question:
>>>> Why is it that from your first person perspective other people die?
>>>>        
>>>> Tom
>>>>        
>>>> On Jun 5, 8:27 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@...> wrote:
>>>>        
>>>>> Hi Lawrence, welcome,
>>>>>          
>>>>> You have to be more precise on the betting procedure. You will win  
>>>>> the
>>>>> bet against people who, from your personal point of view, will most
>>>>> probably be dead at the time. How do you intent to recover the money?
>>>>>          
>>>>> Bruno
>>>>>          
>>>>> On 05 Jun 2008, at 15:28, Lawrence wrote:
>>>>>          
>>>>>> Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this  
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> my first post to the group.
>>>>>>            
>>>>>> It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some
>>>>>> reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I  
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to  
>>>>>> collect
>>>>>> it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for
>>>>>> it!
>>>>>>            
>>>>>> Any thoughts/flames appreciated.
>>>>>>            
>>>>>> Lawrence
>>>>>>            
>>>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>>>>          
>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/-Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>      
>> - Show quoted text -
>>    
> >
>
>  

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Stathis Papaioannou-2]

2008/6/7 Brent Meeker <meekerdb@...>:

> You don't.  You just outlive everyone else in the (very, very tiny, and
> shrinking) hyperplane of Hilbert space where quantum randomness has
> contrived to save you from death (but not from disability  :-(   ).  On
> other very tiny, shrinking hyperplanes you and almost everyone else  you
> know has died except for one other "lucky" person.  In almost all of the
> Hilbert space everybody over the age of 120yrs has died.

You would expect to survive in the most likely way, even if all the
possible ways of survival add up to only a very low measure slice of
the multiverse. For example, if you find yourself living to a very
advanced age it will more likely be because of some non-bizarre reason
such as the discovery of a longevity treatment, with the corollary
that there will be others in the same position as you in the same
universe.


--
Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Bruno Marchal]

On 06 Jun 2008, at 23:35, Tom Caylor wrote:

> I guess I could see that it could be consistent that from each of our
> perspectives eventually we are the only one left in the mulitverse, if
> we were all cut-off from each other, essentially in separate universes
> or histories.  But with all of the appealing aspects (that have been
> brought up in many contexts by many people in history) of an ontology
> based on relations rather than substance, I would think that a
> multiverse that ends in isolation would be a rather disappointing
> (seemingly contrary) conclusion of that ontology.  Plus, I certainly
> wouldn't want to "live" like that.  And I'd even argue that from a
> relational ontology perspective that would be equivalent to non-
> existence.  How about an immortal life in relation to other persons?

Immortality itself is different from the third and first person points  
of view;
I cannot tell. It could be that 1-immortality requires some fusion, or  
merging, of all persons. This makes you "out of time and out of space"  
at the "moment" before you made up singular personal history.
I have to introspect myself more deeply, or study S4Grz and its  
aritmetical semantics for a much longer  time  ...
You ask a difficult question. But I don't think we separate, such  
that each of us converge toward solipsistic very long histories, we  
forget and merge histories too.  (all this assuming comp ...)




> One consistent configuration is that we are all immortal and that part
> of this immortal being is something that is outside of what we can
> observe scientifically, including other persons' deaths.




I am with you. But we can address scientifically the question "does  
self-introspecting machine refer correctly to something they can  
recognize as being something they cannot observe in a third person  
communicable (scientific, objective) way and yet still *know* that  
they can make the experience of it (for example through prays,  
reflexion, meditation, 1-self-introspection, starvation, accidents,  
drugs, or some other (hopefully) genuine 3-self-manipulations, ...)?


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[jal278]

First time post. Would it be possible to use the principles of QS as
an oracle? E.g. buy a lotto ticket before taking a flight, with the
intention
that if you win some improbable amount in the lotto you do not take
the flight.
Perhaps this flight was extremely likely to crash and your odds of
survival are slim.
Would then your observer moment be more likely in the universe where
you win
some improbable amount (odds 1:10,000 maybe) in the lotto? This could
apply
to any potentially dangerous choice you might make.

Similarly, assuming that QI is true, the survival probabilities at the
end cases (where you
are >150 yrs old) would get to be incredibly small, such that perhaps
healthy decisions
made when you are younger (i.e. never smoke, keep fit) would *greatly*
increase those probabilities
 (maybe even to 10^7 or in the range needed to win the lottery).
So, if you have unhealthy habits that you have no intention of
stopping, but bought a lotto
ticket with the intention of never drinking/smoking again if you won
some improbable amount,
it seems that your observer moment might be more likely in the
universe where you win.

My understanding of QI and the way that observer moments are chosen
may be mistaken,
just an idea I wanted to throw out before I gave the latter a try
(since there is really nothing to lose like
in QS).


On Jun 5, 9:28 am, Lawrence <l.a.kel...@...> wrote:

> Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this is
> my first post to the group.
>
> It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some
> reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I will
> live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to collect
> it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for
> it!
>
> Any thoughts/flames appreciated.
>
> Lawrence

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi jal278,


Le 23-juin-08, à 19:08, jal278 a écrit :

>
> First time post.


You are welcome.

> Would it be possible to use the principles of QS as
> an oracle? E.g. buy a lotto ticket before taking a flight, with the
> intention
> that if you win some improbable amount in the lotto you do not take
> the flight.
> Perhaps this flight was extremely likely to crash and your odds of
> survival are slim.
> Would then your observer moment be more likely in the universe where
> you win
> some improbable amount (odds 1:10,000 maybe) in the lotto? This could
> apply
> to any potentially dangerous choice you might make.

I think you make things a bit complex. Any decisions based on quantum
choices will in the long run makes you believe it has helped you to
live longer. But with QI this is not even necessary. Nor do I think
being very old on branch is something we should wish ...
Now, if you want, you could already exploit "quantum superstition" by
selling quantum choice devices, here and now, ... to make money ...

>
> Similarly, assuming that QI is true, the survival probabilities at the
> end cases (where you
> are >150 yrs old) would get to be incredibly small, such that perhaps
> healthy decisions
> made when you are younger (i.e. never smoke, keep fit) would *greatly*
> increase those probabilities
>  (maybe even to 10^7 or in the range needed to win the lottery).
> So, if you have unhealthy habits that you have no intention of
> stopping, but bought a lotto
> ticket with the intention of never drinking/smoking again if you won
> some improbable amount,
> it seems that your observer moment might be more likely in the
> universe where you win.

Hmmm... I don't like any "precaution principle", and here you are
advocating a sort of quantum precaution principle. I am not convinced.


>
> My understanding of QI and the way that observer moments are chosen
> may be mistaken,
> just an idea I wanted to throw out before I gave the latter a try
> (since there is really nothing to lose like
> in QS).


The truth is that concerning "immortality" and Observer Moments
selection (the recurring thema of this list), there are many open
problems, so it is hard and perhaps premature to think about it in term
of practical decision. I will say more on first person immortality in a
post to Tom Caylor some day (I am still a bit busy). Third person
immortality, i.e. "very long life" could make sense only if we forget
somehow how long it is, redundancies, etc. ... but feel free to send us
your latter try.

Bruno

>
>
> On Jun 5, 9:28 am, Lawrence <l.a.kel...@...> wrote:
>> Forgive me if the following comment is ill-thought through as this is
>> my first post to the group.
>>
>> It appears to me that, assuming QS is true, I should bet some
>> reasonably substantial amount of cash at the local bookies that I will
>> live to 110 or 120 years of age. Of course I will be around to collect
>> it given QS. This does assume the bookies is still around to pay for
>> it!
>>
>> Any thoughts/flames appreciated.
>>
>> Lawrence
> >
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Brent Meeker-2]

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi jal278,
...

>     Similarly, assuming that QI is true, the survival probabilities at the
>     end cases (where you
>     are >150 yrs old) would get to be incredibly small, such that perhaps
>     healthy decisions
>     made when you are younger (i.e. never smoke, keep fit) would *greatly*
>     increase those probabilities
>     (maybe even to 10^7 or in the range needed to win the lottery).
>     So, if you have unhealthy habits that you have no intention of
>     stopping, but bought a lotto
>     ticket with the intention of never drinking/smoking again if you won
>     some improbable amount,
>     it seems that your observer moment might be more likely in the
>     universe where you win.
>
>
> Hmmm... I don't like any "precaution principle", and here you are
> advocating a sort of quantum precaution principle. I am not convinced.

Interestingly, Everett smoked and otherwise led a very unhealthy lifestyle
and died at 52 (in this world).

Brent Meeker


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---