[extropy-chat] Let's try this again.

[Samantha Atkins]

On May 9, 2006, at 9:51 AM, A B wrote:

> Hi Samantha,
>
> Samantha wrote:
> "...adds nothing of value to our knowledge and does not add to the  
> ability to make sense of our world..."
>
> With all due respect, this is *your* opinion, not mine, and  
> probably not the opinion of several other people on this list -  
> judging from the level of activity that this thread has produced.

The hypothesis explains nothing of known phenomenon better.  If you  
believe it does then please make your case.  The level of activity  
says nothing at all about this question.

>
> I've already listed some direct implications that this conclusion  
> would carry (if true), in a much earlier post, but I've thought of  
> a couple more since then:
>

That something has implications does not mean it explains existing  
data better or makes valid and useful predictions or better  
integrates our relevant knowledge.   I can make up notions all day  
that have tons of interesting implications.  But none would be more  
believable or valid for that.

> -  It would carry mutual (bi-directional) implications with the  
> Many Worlds QM theory.
>

How so and under which of many versions or imagined implications of MWI?

> -  It would suggest that people who die in this era (without  
> cryopreservation) will not
>    be "resurrected" by SIs of the future: because it lies outside  
> their abilities or
>    desires, or because we fall to an existential risk before the  
> Singularity occurs.
>

I don't see how this follows at all.  If it does follow it still says  
nothing about the hypothesis being of value.

>
> -  If proven true, it might encourage some people of the strictly  
> "Thread" view of life
>    to arrange for Cryonics, where otherwise they might not.

Does this perhaps laudable possible outcome of believing the  
hypothesis validate it?  No.

>
> Samantha:
> "...has nothing at all compelling to recommend it..."
>
> Your opinion again. I respectfully disagree.

Then show that it does.  Your disagreement was already known.

- samantha