
Statistical Immortality - 3pt14159
http://zachaysan.tumblr.com/post/7238016119/statistical-immortality
======
gwern
Seems like an attempt to reinvent the _Permutation City_ argument. In any
event, as formulated, I don't think it quite works:

> Since there are an infinite number of universes, an infinite number of
> dimensions, or an infinite number of non-identical universe “cycles”, there
> are an infinite number of particles and particle arrangements.

The last claim does not follow without additional assumptions about the nature
of universes.

~~~
exit
why doesn't the claim that there are infinitely many particle arrangements
follow from there being infinite non-identical universe pairs?

~~~
gwern
Particle arrangements aren't the only property of a universe. Imagine a
universe with 1 particle in it. Imagine a second universe with the same
particle but +1 volume bigger. Not identical. Now imagine a third universe
with the same particle arrangement with +3 volume bigger... And so on for all
natural numbers. An infinite number of universes, each distinct, with the same
particle arrangement. We can do this same trick for all sorts of universe
properties (laws, energies, geometries).

If we define universes _as_ the particle arrangements, then it would then
logically follow that infinitely many unique universes implies infinitely many
particle arrangements (a ≡ b; a; ∴ b).

(This is common to many Eternal Recurrence theories as well; need some
assumption which prevents repeating patterns from 'running out the clock' and
not exploring the full range of possibilities.)

------
reasonattlm
Alternately:

[http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/05/lazy-
immortality....](http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/05/lazy-
immortality.php)

Wouldn't it be nice to wake up and find that we were all immortal? That would
save a whole lot of work, uncertainty, and existential angst - and we humans
are nothing if not motivated to do less work. The best of us toil endlessly in
search of saving a few minutes here and a few minutes there. So it happens
that there exist a range of metaphysical lines of thought - outside the bounds
of theology - that suggest we humans are immortal. We should cast a suspicious
eye upon any line of philosophy that would be extraordinarily convenient if
true, human nature being what it is.

~~~
gwern
He doesn't actually believe it:

> I personally reject the proof because I don’t believe all the premises, but
> if the premises are revealed to be true, then I would accept that death is
> unattainable.

Most take the _Permutation City_ argument as a _reductio_ about computational
theories of identity, and a challenge to figure out what computations really
are since simple theories lead to such odd consequences. (This is how
Boltzmann brains were received as well.)

