[ExI] What should survive and why?

[Lee Corbin]

Stathis writes

> [Lee wrote, referencing two posts]
> 
> > the third second, so that at the end, objectively, after two seconds
> > the Ruling AI has eliminated the resource problem insofar as regards
> > y'all. Or do you want more?  Do you want *objectively* to be around 
> > at all times and places in the future?
...
> > I really do want to know if---under this admittedly very wild hypothesis 
> > ---you would find the prospect of such a future alluring or depressing.
> > And whichever answer, why so?
> 
> I don't even see it as an issue: I would be quite happy with the
> scenario you propose, and I would be unhappy with objectively
> living forever while subjectively living for only a limited time. 

Thanks for the answer.  I too would choose being subjectively
immortal (i.e. getting infinitely much runtime) over being objectively
immortal if the latter encompassed only finitely much runtime.

However---I still have a strong desire to have both.  Maybe it's
just an unconscious hope that staying alive forever objectively
has the added advantage that I'll "keep up with the times" in
a certain sense, and may obtain benefit from an eventual change
in the possibilities or the rules.  (For example, if eternity exists,
and the ruling AIs give me 1 second after 1 trillion years, then
1 second after 10 trillion years, then another after 100 trillion
years, and so on, even though I am effectively immortal, I'm a
bit disappointed by the overall paucity of my per-diem.

It also may be just sheer egotism: if there is going to be such a
*great* party, why shouldn't I and everyone else I know of
get to go too?

Lee