From: Dan Fabulich (dfabulich@warpmail.net)
Date: Tue Sep 03 2002 - 13:35:05 MDT
gts wrote:
> Eliezer,
>
> > Your *total* risk of dying over
> > your *entire* infinite lifespan is 1/32768.
>
> I don't accept your math (see alejandro's comment).
Alejandro's comment was:
> Only for independent systems. Lots of events (eg sun going nova) are
> likely to break more than one repair system at a time.
So, let's clarify here. First, the "repair system" idea was obviously a
huge abstraction. Alejandro's point is well-taken, but it's only a minor
tweak to the problem setup: presume that I have N repair "systems" whose
failure rates are independent from one another. ("Systems" appears in
quotes, since I'm suggesting that to be a "system" on the scale we're
talking about means to be independent from the other systems.) From
there, Eliezer's argument holds.
In particular, *nobody should reject the math*. You might reject the
setup, [is it really possible to have N systems with independent failure
rates? Is it really possible to add systems indefinitely?] but you really
shouldn't reject the *math*.
> However, regardless of your computations, if you might die then you are
> not by definition immortal.
No, the definition of immortality simply states that you will not actually
die, not that it isn't possible for you to have died.
In particular, presume that there are actually 32768 beings repairing
themselves in this way, and that you're one of them. Furthermore, presume
that you're lucky enough to be one of the 32767 who will survive. In that
case, you WILL live forever. Period. One of the group may die, but the
rest won't ever die.
If that's not immortality, then I don't know what is.
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:40 MST