From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Dec 10 2004 - 22:59:19 MST
Good ideas Marc. A few months ago I send a note to some lists (don't
remember if I sent it also to sk4) with compatible considerations. Now
I found it in the everything list archives and posted to my blog for
Would love hearing your comments.
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:57:02 +1300 (NZDT), Marc Geddes
> Hope no one here is annoyed by this, but I have to ask
> the question, since many here profess to believe in
> the 'Many Worlds' interpretation of qauntum mechanics,
> yet at the same time, several leading transhumanists
> (Eli and Klein) were recently lamenting the death of
> loved ones.
> Isn't it really the case that lost loved ones have
> *not* in fact been obliterated, *if* in fact, MWI is
> true? Their consciousness has simply concentrated in
> the QM branches where they survived has it not?
> I've really been thinking hard about the MWI of late.
> One major hypothesis I'm favoring is that the strength
> of consciousness in a given time track is *weighed*
> according the frequency of qauntum states
> corresponding to that particular time track. For
> instance this implies that low probability time tracks
> wouldn't have strongly conscious observers associated
> with them. Any thoughts on this?
> Another thought that has occurred to me is that MWI
> seems to create difficulties for the ethics of
> computer simulations. For instance, a major argument
> against ancestral simulations is that it would be
> unethical because of the suffering created. But if
> MWI is true, all these computations already exist with
> a certain frequency anyway, and if we run an ancestral
> simulation which matches the real universe then we
> will not have changed the frequency of time tracks
> where suffering is occuring, so why would it be
> Food for thought.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT