QI predict result of a physical experiment. It said that if there are two outcomes, 1 and 2, and I am an observer of this experiment and in case of outcome 2 I die, than I will measure outcome 1 with 100 per cent probability, no matter what was priors of outcome 1 and 2.
This definition doesn’t depend on any “esoteric” ideas about “I” and personal identity. Observer here coud be a turing-computer program.
For example, if we run 1 000 000 copies of a program which will be terminated if dice (each for any instance of the program) falls odd (1,3,5) and not terminated if (2,4,6), than the program should expect that it will measure only 2, 4 or 6 with one third probability each and that after the dices were rolled only 500 000 copies of the program survive.
QI predict result of a physical experiment. [...] I will measure outcome 1 with 100 per cent probability
The same is true on any interpretation of QM, and even without QM.
If you are guaranteed to die when the outcome is 2, then every outcome you experience will be outcome 1. Everyone should agree with that. It has nothing to do with any special feature of quantum mechanics. It doesn’t rely on “many worlds” or anything.
The same is true on any interpretation of QM, and even without QM.
What is true on any interpretation is that if one experiences any outcome at all, they will with 100 percent probability experience 1. Only with QI can they be 100 percent certain of actually experiencing it.
Yes, QI said that there always will be my copies that will actually experience outcome 1, and there is no difference between me and copy, so it will be me.
Yes, QI is not about quantum in fact, it is just about big world, that is why I prefer to name it “many world immortality” or big world immortality. To experience outcome 1 I just need the actual existence of my copies.
QI predict result of a physical experiment. It said that if there are two outcomes, 1 and 2, and I am an observer of this experiment and in case of outcome 2 I die, than I will measure outcome 1 with 100 per cent probability, no matter what was priors of outcome 1 and 2.
That’s just anthropics: you will not observe the world in which you do not exist.
As I mentioned in another comment, I still don’t see how this leads to you existing forever.
You will not, actually, measure outcome 1 with 100% probability, since you may well die before doing so.
Lets assume that 1 million my copies exist and they play russian roulette every second with two equal outcomes. Next second there will be 500 000 my copies who experience outcome 1 and so on for next 20 second. So one copy of me will survive 20 rounds of roulette and will feel itself immortal.
Many world immortality is based on this experiment with two premises: that there are infinitely many my copies (or they created after each round) and that there is no existential difference between the copies. In this case roulette will always fail.
I put all different outcomes of these two premises in the map in the opening post, seems strange that no body sees it ))
If there is no infinite number of my copies and or if copies are not equal, big world immortality doesn’t work.
QI predict result of a physical experiment. It said that if there are two outcomes, 1 and 2, and I am an observer of this experiment and in case of outcome 2 I die, than I will measure outcome 1 with 100 per cent probability, no matter what was priors of outcome 1 and 2.
This definition doesn’t depend on any “esoteric” ideas about “I” and personal identity. Observer here coud be a turing-computer program.
For example, if we run 1 000 000 copies of a program which will be terminated if dice (each for any instance of the program) falls odd (1,3,5) and not terminated if (2,4,6), than the program should expect that it will measure only 2, 4 or 6 with one third probability each and that after the dices were rolled only 500 000 copies of the program survive.
The same is true on any interpretation of QM, and even without QM.
If you are guaranteed to die when the outcome is 2, then every outcome you experience will be outcome 1. Everyone should agree with that. It has nothing to do with any special feature of quantum mechanics. It doesn’t rely on “many worlds” or anything.
What is true on any interpretation is that if one experiences any outcome at all, they will with 100 percent probability experience 1. Only with QI can they be 100 percent certain of actually experiencing it.
Yes, QI said that there always will be my copies that will actually experience outcome 1, and there is no difference between me and copy, so it will be me.
Yes, QI is not about quantum in fact, it is just about big world, that is why I prefer to name it “many world immortality” or big world immortality. To experience outcome 1 I just need the actual existence of my copies.
That’s just anthropics: you will not observe the world in which you do not exist.
As I mentioned in another comment, I still don’t see how this leads to you existing forever.
You will not, actually, measure outcome 1 with 100% probability, since you may well die before doing so.
Lets assume that 1 million my copies exist and they play russian roulette every second with two equal outcomes. Next second there will be 500 000 my copies who experience outcome 1 and so on for next 20 second. So one copy of me will survive 20 rounds of roulette and will feel itself immortal.
Many world immortality is based on this experiment with two premises: that there are infinitely many my copies (or they created after each round) and that there is no existential difference between the copies. In this case roulette will always fail.
I put all different outcomes of these two premises in the map in the opening post, seems strange that no body sees it )) If there is no infinite number of my copies and or if copies are not equal, big world immortality doesn’t work.