Philosophical Vegan Forum
https://philosophicalvegan.com/
Alive and dead in the multiverse isn't a binary state, it's a question of what portion of universes you exist in. You would be dramatically reducing that proportion (as well as your own) which is morally relevant in so far as life has value irrespective of our knowledge or experience of it in a single universe. Fewer universes with a given fulfilling life is a negative.
It's just the conclusion drawn from the math, if we don't add on the assumption of collapse in Copenhagen. I don't think there's any experimental means of differentiating the models (yet, and probably not ever), but it's preferred by Occam's razor and that means a great deal.FredVegrox wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:02 am Many worlds of quantum mechanics is not a proven truth and I don't think it would be yet or even could be.
I think you have a bit of a misconception on QM and bifurcation here.FredVegrox wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:02 amEven if it somehow could be, we each experience just one such world up to the death we experience, and with no continuity with alternate selves we have in any other world of quantum mechanics.
From classical deaths there may be some uncertainty (you might be eliminated in 99.999999999999% of universes from a pretty certain deterministic death, and we may doubt how many distinct universes there are in which there is a miraculous rescue), but any death deriving from quantum bifurcation it's a pretty sure thing, where you're dead/alive in 50% of universes.FredVegrox wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:02 amAnd further, if that were yet true, we do not know then if any one individual is singularly in this world of quantum mechanics and not in any other, still, or not.
I think you missed my point entirely. Anything that justifies euthanasia in one universe likely does so in all similar universes. It doesn't matter what QM model you use. If you're talking about to reduce extreme suffering in a terminal illness, it's probably justified regardless. If just for kicks, of course it's wrong.
You said that suicide is not a good idea because, if Quantum Immortality is true (and we cannot prove that it isn't), suiciders simply wake up in some parallel universe, but with high probability of being paralyzed. But doesn't the same apply to euthanised people then? Don't euthanised people, if Quantum Immortality is true, wake up in some parallel universe, but with high probability of being paralyzed.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:48 amI think you missed my point entirely. Anything that justifies euthanasia in one universe likely does so in all similar universes. It doesn't matter what QM model you use. If you're talking about to reduce extreme suffering in a terminal illness, it's probably justified regardless. If just for kicks, of course it's wrong.
What's wrong in one universe is wrong in the others too.
There are very limited cases where we could imagine there being some difference between killing with bifurcation vs killing deterministically.
Let's say somebody used a bifurcator before you were born, and based on those results paired your parents up so it has had an unavoidable effect on your very existence. However, the 0 or 1 status is still unknown to you.
Do you prefer being killed if that pre-determined and "locked in" value that you just happen not to know is 0 and let live if it's 1, or do you prefer being killed or not based on the results of a fresh bifurcation?
With a reliable enough means of death, the former will see essentially 99.9999999.... and so % of the universe (on to an astronomical level) with you being killed or not killed (and not both). Possibly even all of them if there is in actuality no possible miracle that would spare you (unlike say the quantum mechanical randomness in free radical DNA damage).
The latter, it would be 50-50%.
In gambling terms, and in hedonic moral terms, these are identical. When it comes only to experience and its value, none is more or less wrong than the other.
In terms of preference satisfaction, however, they can be distinct: Some people may prefer one over the other. Regardless, they will also prefer not to be killed (or to risk death) at all, so both are harmful to that person's preferences.
Don't kill people. I shouldn't have to explain in such detail why it's wrong to murder.
Failure of medical euthanasia would be less common, and less likely to result in paralysis.teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 7:41 am You said that suicide is not a good idea because, if Quantum Immortality is true (and we cannot prove that it isn't), suiciders simply wake up in some parallel universe, but with high probability of being paralyzed. But doesn't the same apply to euthanised people then? Don't euthanised people, if Quantum Immortality is true, wake up in some parallel universe, but with high probability of being paralyzed.
How do you know that?brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:56 pmFailure of medical euthanasia would be less common, and less likely to result in paralysis.teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 7:41 am You said that suicide is not a good idea because, if Quantum Immortality is true (and we cannot prove that it isn't), suiciders simply wake up in some parallel universe, but with high probability of being paralyzed. But doesn't the same apply to euthanised people then? Don't euthanised people, if Quantum Immortality is true, wake up in some parallel universe, but with high probability of being paralyzed.
I think you have more certainty than is justified from math. We know of four dimensions extended beyond known measurement from our experience, curvature effects determine that there would likely be a fifth extended dimension. Other dimensions that are figured as explanation of string theory or M theory circle around tightly at a subatomic measurement, they would not account for alternate realities. That fifth dimension does not give us indication that there are alternate realities of us. We do not know what would be out there.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Fri Jul 29, 2022 12:34 am Welcome to the forum,
It's just the conclusion drawn from the math, if we don't add on the assumption of collapse in Copenhagen. I don't think there's any experimental means of differentiating the models (yet, and probably not ever), but it's preferred by Occam's razor and that means a great deal.FredVegrox wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:02 am Many worlds of quantum mechanics is not a proven truth and I don't think it would be yet or even could be.
That said, even if MWI did justify it (it doesn't) I don't think we should be leaning on a model preferred by Occam's razor to justify murder, no matter how logically sound it may seem. High stakes like that would have a very steep demand for evidence, and if anybody has concluded murder is justified in some scenario the higher probability is that the person has made an error in reasoning.
I think you have a bit of a misconception on QM and bifurcation here.FredVegrox wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:02 amEven if it somehow could be, we each experience just one such world up to the death we experience, and with no continuity with alternate selves we have in any other world of quantum mechanics.
From classical deaths there may be some uncertainty (you might be eliminated in 99.999999999999% of universes from a pretty certain deterministic death, and we may doubt how many distinct universes there are in which there is a miraculous rescue), but any death deriving from quantum bifurcation it's a pretty sure thing, where you're dead/alive in 50% of universes.FredVegrox wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:02 amAnd further, if that were yet true, we do not know then if any one individual is singularly in this world of quantum mechanics and not in any other, still, or not.
If you were stranded on an island with one other person with only enough food for one (or the necessity of cannibalism), and you happened to have a quantum bifurcator with you, it might be a more ethical choice to use it to decide rather than just fighting it out for any number of reasons.
I can see knowing you'll exist in 50% of universes being a lot better than having a 50% chance of existing in practically all or practically none of them. Both are obviously much worse than not being killed at all.