From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 16:45:23 MDT
Emyln writes
> Rafal wrote
> > ### Because "not bothering" results in unpleasant subjective
> > experience. Also, what do you mean by "existence"? Minds
> > which do not bother to exist, have a smaller measure in this
> > platonic pattern space, which might for some other minds be
> > a reason enough to bother.
> Well, wait up there. An infinite space can't really be partitioned like
> that. You either take up none of it, or a finite subset of it, or an
> infinite subset of some order equal to or less than its order.
No, Rafal's wording is exactly correct. Imagine a slice of pie the
way that scientists thought of it before atoms were widely believed
in. A slice is a fraction: if we substitute a mathematical disk,
then one is entirely correct to say that although both the disk and
the slice of it have uncountably many points (more than merely
countably infinitely many), while "fraction" still retains its usual
meaning. Therefore, if I decide to kill myself, then this action
is replicated in all the solar systems where identical Lee's reside,
and in all the parallel universes.
> Is it clear that making the effort to exist, or to make sure that
> there are 10 copies of yourself rather than 1 actually impacts in
> any way on the space of possibilities in any meaningful way?
I would say yes, and the reason once again is the "fraction". The
idea of fraction is spiffed up in a branch of mathematics called
measure theory, wherein one speaks of something's "measure" and
one should read that as "fraction" or "percentage".
*Almost* everything is the same as it would be without MWI or all
the infinitely many other solar systems---but *not* everything.
One difference is that if you had integrated these latest findings
into your emotional responses, then when a friend says that his
brother has died after a terrible bout with cancer, you are properly
sympathetic. But if his brother died from having been struck by
a meteorite, you merely console your friend by reinforcing his knowledge
that this was a fluke, and that his brother is doing well in almost
all the other solar systems and universes.
> Arguments about striving to survive because we evolved to are explanatory,
> but not sufficient for justification in the light of a philosophy (transhumanism)
> which rejects the constraints of naturally selected mental structures.
Yes, I agree totally. One should strive to survive because you
can obtain benefit. Where there is energy and intelligence, there
can be happiness. And one owes it to himself to attempt to arrange
things so that you and the entities you care about can achieve
maximum benefit.
Lee
P.S. I see now that Rafal said a lot of this in a later post,
and on my earlier posts Jef and Hal had said a lot of what I
wanted to say. Sorry if it's redundant, I'm just finding it too
expensive to read everything before giving into the urge to reply.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 03 2003 - 16:56:09 MDT