Whoops! Misread this as "Quantum Immorality". Now there's a metaphysical topic worth pursuing! :nerd: — jgill
'Quantum immortality'). — Philosophuser
Whoops! Misread this as "Quantum Immorality". Now there's a metaphysical topic worth pursuing! :nerd: — jgill
Yes, but from a subjective point of view they are others when they diverge, if the divergence is at the point of your death, you won't have more different experience, only the version surviving will experience things.2. "You" are not the other "You"s.
107 billion people
There are currently seven billion people alive today and the Population Reference Bureau estimates that about 107 billion people have ever lived. This means that we are nowhere near close to having more alive than dead. — Google
What is the probability that a person will achieve quantum immortality in the universe we exist in?
If you are just a collection of mental states, I'm not sure, but in this case, there is not only one version of "you", a guy that was exactly like you until 10 years ago and now is doing different things is "you" too... And if you expand this vision, you will probably reach something like "open individualism", where you are everybody. Even more, since this don't require physical continuity a guy like you appearing now is your past "you" too... And, then, a guy remembering being a famous singer is him, even if these singer have never existed... Since this is based on memories, I guess that you could reach bizarre conclusions, like if your neighbor develop false memories of being you and you got amnesic, he is more you than yourself. — Philosophuser
The Multiverse Idea is Rotting Culture — Wayfarer
A point of clarification. The multiverse and the many worlds interpretation are two entirely separate ideas. — fishfry
I’m well aware of the technical distinction but they tend to blur in the popular imagination. — Wayfarer
BTW there’s a really good intro to Everett’s notion — Wayfarer
I like to think of him as a great physicist but a not-so-great philosopher. — fishfry
If the universe is infinite in space, there are a lot of "yous", birthing continually, — Philosophuser
The probability that you randomly select a real number from the unit interval and it turns out to be rational, is zero. — fishfry
50%, surely? Otherwise you couldn't have a unique Dedekind cut for each real. — Kenosha Kid
I guess I'd never really thought about it, thanks. — Kenosha Kid
Yes, I always read the example of integer numbers, but this is an ordered series, the universe is not. And even if it's not granted, I guess the probabilities of it to occur are really high, like 99.999...%. — Philosophuser
Yes, I scratched my head at the seeming contradiction between the uncountability of the irrationals and the definition of the Dedekin cut, but of course by definition each cut either has a lower set with no upper bound or a greater set with no lower, et voila: uncountability. I guess I'd never really thought about it, thanks. — Kenosha Kid
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.