Just a remark: Even “quantum immortality” and “quantum suicide” are two different concepts.
One is a hypothetically proposed action, the other a fairly misleading way of describing the implications of a quantum event with a non-zero probability of your survival.
The concept of “quantum suicide” however is assumed for the OP: It says that if there is a quantum event with a non-zero probability outcome of surviving, then in (some universe) there will be a continuation of your consiciousness that will experience that branch. It is not much more speculative that MWI itself. At least, it is hard to argue against that belief as long as you think MWI is right.
I agree, and have expressed frustration in the way ‘belief’ and ‘believers in’ have been thrown about in regards to these topics. While ‘belief’ should be more or less obvious, the word has been used to describe a somewhat more significant claim than that one of the many worlds will contain an alive instance of me. ‘Belief in QS’ has often been used to represent the assertion that for the purposes of evaluating utility the probability assigned to events should only take into account worlds where survival occurs. In that mode of thinking, ‘the probability of experiencing injury’ is what I would describe as p(injury | survival).
When going along with this kind of reasoning for the purposes of the discussion I tend to include quotation or otherwise imply that I am considering the distorted probability function against my better judgement. There are limits to how often one can emphasise that kind of thing without seeming the pedant.
The concept of “quantum immortality” assumes that there is always an event that prolongs you life so you will always go on experience being alive. This is very speculative (and therefore I don’t buy it).
The only ‘speculation’ appears to be in just how small a non-zero probability a quantum event can have. If there were actually no lower limit then quantum immortality would (more or less) be implied. This ties into speculation along the lines of Robin’s ‘mangled worlds’. The assumption that there are limits to how fine the Everett branches can be sliced would be one reason to suggest quantum suicide is a bad idea for reasons beyond just arbitrarily wanting to claim as much of the Everett tree as possible.
The only ‘speculation’ appears to be in just how small a non-zero probability a quantum event can have. If there were actually no lower limit then quantum immortality would (more or less) be implied.
I think the speculation in QI are mainly in the two following hidden assumptions (even if you believe in vanilla MWI) :
There will always be some nonzero probability event that lets you live on.
The accumulation of such events will eventually give you an indefinite life span
Both of the above two are speculations and could very well be wrong even if arbitrary low probability branches continue to exist.
‘Belief in QS’ has often been used to represent the assertion that for the purposes of evaluating utility the probability assigned to events should only take into account worlds where survival occurs. In that mode of thinking, ‘the probability of experiencing injury’ is what I would describe as p(injury | survival).
In this sense I don’t believe in QS. BTW, I don’t think you can believe in the correctness of utility functions. You can believe in the correctness of theories and then you decide your utility function. It may be even inconsistent (and you can be money pumped), still that’s your choice, based on the evidences.
It makes sense to first split the following three components:
Mathematical questions (In this specific case, these are very basic probability theoretical calculations)
(Meta-)physical questions: Is the MWI correct? Is mangled world correct? etc. Do our consciousness continues in all Everett branches? etc.
Moral questions: What should you choose as a utility function assuming certain physical theories
It seems that you try to mix these different aspects.
If you notice the necessity to revise your calculations or physical world view, then it may force you to update your moral preferences, objective functions as well. But you should never let your moral preferences determine the outcome of your mathematical calculation or confidence in physical theories.
BTW, I don’t think you can believe in the correctness of utility functions.
That is not the correct interpretation of my statement. The broad foundations of a utility function can give people a motivation for calculating certain probabilities and may influence the language that is used.
It seems that you try to mix these different aspects.
No, and I expressed explicitly an objection to doing so, to the point where for me to do so further would be harping on about it. I am willing to engage with those who evaluate probabilities from the position of assuming they will be a person who will be experiencing life. The language is usually ambiguous and clarified by the declared assumptions.
I doubt discussing this further will give either of us any remarkable insights. Mostly because the concepts are trivial (given the appropriate background).
One is a hypothetically proposed action, the other a fairly misleading way of describing the implications of a quantum event with a non-zero probability of your survival.
I agree, and have expressed frustration in the way ‘belief’ and ‘believers in’ have been thrown about in regards to these topics. While ‘belief’ should be more or less obvious, the word has been used to describe a somewhat more significant claim than that one of the many worlds will contain an alive instance of me. ‘Belief in QS’ has often been used to represent the assertion that for the purposes of evaluating utility the probability assigned to events should only take into account worlds where survival occurs. In that mode of thinking, ‘the probability of experiencing injury’ is what I would describe as p(injury | survival).
When going along with this kind of reasoning for the purposes of the discussion I tend to include quotation or otherwise imply that I am considering the distorted probability function against my better judgement. There are limits to how often one can emphasise that kind of thing without seeming the pedant.
The only ‘speculation’ appears to be in just how small a non-zero probability a quantum event can have. If there were actually no lower limit then quantum immortality would (more or less) be implied. This ties into speculation along the lines of Robin’s ‘mangled worlds’. The assumption that there are limits to how fine the Everett branches can be sliced would be one reason to suggest quantum suicide is a bad idea for reasons beyond just arbitrarily wanting to claim as much of the Everett tree as possible.
I think the speculation in QI are mainly in the two following hidden assumptions (even if you believe in vanilla MWI) :
There will always be some nonzero probability event that lets you live on.
The accumulation of such events will eventually give you an indefinite life span
Both of the above two are speculations and could very well be wrong even if arbitrary low probability branches continue to exist.
They seem to me to just be the implications of the theory.
In this sense I don’t believe in QS. BTW, I don’t think you can believe in the correctness of utility functions. You can believe in the correctness of theories and then you decide your utility function. It may be even inconsistent (and you can be money pumped), still that’s your choice, based on the evidences.
It makes sense to first split the following three components:
Mathematical questions (In this specific case, these are very basic probability theoretical calculations)
(Meta-)physical questions: Is the MWI correct? Is mangled world correct? etc. Do our consciousness continues in all Everett branches? etc.
Moral questions: What should you choose as a utility function assuming certain physical theories
It seems that you try to mix these different aspects.
If you notice the necessity to revise your calculations or physical world view, then it may force you to update your moral preferences, objective functions as well. But you should never let your moral preferences determine the outcome of your mathematical calculation or confidence in physical theories.
That is not the correct interpretation of my statement. The broad foundations of a utility function can give people a motivation for calculating certain probabilities and may influence the language that is used.
No, and I expressed explicitly an objection to doing so, to the point where for me to do so further would be harping on about it. I am willing to engage with those who evaluate probabilities from the position of assuming they will be a person who will be experiencing life. The language is usually ambiguous and clarified by the declared assumptions.
I doubt discussing this further will give either of us any remarkable insights. Mostly because the concepts are trivial (given the appropriate background).