Why does patternism [the position that you are only a pattern in physics and any continuations of it are you/you’d sign up for cryonics/you’d step into Parfit’s teleporter/you’ve read the QM sequence]
not imply
subjective immortality? [you will see people dying, other people will see you die, but you will never experience it yourself]
(contingent on the universe being big enough for lots of continuations of you to exist physically)
I asked this on the official IRC, but only feep was kind enough to oblige (and had a unique argument that I don’t think everyone is using)
If you have a completely thought out explanation for why it does imply that, you ought never to be worried about what you’re doing leading to your death (maybe painful existence, but never death), because there would be a version of you that would miraculously escape it.
If you bite that bullet as well, then I would like you to formulate your argument cleanly, then answer this (rot13):
jul jrer lbh noyr gb haqretb narfgurfvn? (hayrff lbh pbagraq lbh jrer fgvyy pbafpvbhf rira gura)
ETA: This is slightly different from a Quantum Immortality question (although resolutions might be similar) - there is no need to involve QM or its interpretations here, even in a classical universe (as long as it’s large enough), if you’re a patternist, you can expect to “teleport” to another exact clone somewhere that manages to live.
Can someone recommend a book on Economics basics with the same level of force and completion as a Jaynes/Drescher/Pearl/Nozick/Dawes?
I mean, with powerful freeing laws (I feel like this is exactly analogous to EY’s requiredism in the free will sequence) that can let my imagination wander without fear of fooling myself too much.
I realize that this may be asking for too much given the nature of the field, but anything that is close will do.