I wish it could work, but it doesn’t. You only experience the single moment (which includes memories of the past and expectations of the future), and at this present moment you can’t tell from your observations whether you are located in a proper casually-affected body, or in a BB. What’s more, assuming you’re a real human, your consciousness actually is not continuous, as you imply, but has intermittent gaps from 10s to 100s of ms (can’t find a good citation), which you don’t notice in the same way as you don’t notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade
FWIW, you could be losing consciousness every other quantum of time, and still not notice it (and you probably do, we just can’t measure it).
You obviously shouldn’t care, but because it doesn’t make sense to care, not due to observation.
Apologies, I realise I might’ve misunderstood your comment. Do you actually mean that you shouldn’t worry about being a BB because it is sort of inconsequential, not that you are sure you are not one because you’ve got the “next observer-moment”?
I agree with the former, but was arguing against the latter.
No in both cases. Here I am thinking about my self as objected which has some thickness in 4-th dimensions, like Ebborians in EY post. I am simultaneously located in all places there my copies are located.
It is opposite to the view that “I am randomly selected from all my copies” as there is no selection part. I am all my copies. In that case, loosing some of the copies is not a big deal.
If I am selected from my copies, and turns out that I am BB, it means that I will disappear in the next moment – it means that I will dies next moment and it is unpleasant idea. Therefore, being inconsequential is bad.
I wish it could work, but it doesn’t. You only experience the single moment (which includes memories of the past and expectations of the future), and at this present moment you can’t tell from your observations whether you are located in a proper casually-affected body, or in a BB. What’s more, assuming you’re a real human, your consciousness actually is not continuous, as you imply, but has intermittent gaps from 10s to 100s of ms (can’t find a good citation), which you don’t notice in the same way as you don’t notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade FWIW, you could be losing consciousness every other quantum of time, and still not notice it (and you probably do, we just can’t measure it).
You obviously shouldn’t care, but because it doesn’t make sense to care, not due to observation.
PS Maybe you’d want to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City by Greg Egan—he takes the idea of simulation and discontinuity of consciousness to a lovely extreme.
I read it of course. What i said is related to a single observer-moment.
Apologies, I realise I might’ve misunderstood your comment. Do you actually mean that you shouldn’t worry about being a BB because it is sort of inconsequential, not that you are sure you are not one because you’ve got the “next observer-moment”?
I agree with the former, but was arguing against the latter.
No in both cases. Here I am thinking about my self as objected which has some thickness in 4-th dimensions, like Ebborians in EY post. I am simultaneously located in all places there my copies are located.
It is opposite to the view that “I am randomly selected from all my copies” as there is no selection part. I am all my copies. In that case, loosing some of the copies is not a big deal.
If I am selected from my copies, and turns out that I am BB, it means that I will disappear in the next moment – it means that I will dies next moment and it is unpleasant idea. Therefore, being inconsequential is bad.