Let’s just make our own. I’ve always thought we should come up with a new religion around quantum immortality.
Some basic thoughts could be:
Since you are the only immortal one from your point of view, all of your loved ones will die before you, so don’t worry too much about meddling in their affairs or changing them, just love them unconditionally. Your time with them is brief, so you may as well enjoy it.
Make good memories together, you will carry them along eternally (meanwhile, from others’ point of view, you will die at some point, but they will go on forever, so give them some good memories of you).
Work toward the world and society you want to live in forever.
Hold yourself to unusually high standards, because you will have to deal with the consequences of your actions for an unusually long time. Also someday you will probably be noticed as one of the earliest immortals, so try to live a life that stands up to some scrutiny.
To avoid the stress of being incompatible with modern values, you’ll have to keep updating your moral framework. Big jumps in your moral framework will be unpleasant to deal with mentally, so keep up with where society is going. You don’t have the benefit of dying and becoming a product of your time at some point.
I've been fairly persuaded that quantum mechanics are the side effects of simulating a continuous universe (how ours appears at macro scales).
So even though 99% of the universe models one from 'real' (mathematically) origins, that the digital (mathematically) parts at low fidelity may in fact have an element of intelligent design in them.
One of my favorite things to consider within that paradigm is that light when unobserved can be more than one thing at once, and that in that state two different observers can measure it as different results as long as separated from each other.
So when we think about things like the concept of a god of light or an afterlife or a soul, that the very fact these things are immeasurable may reflect that they don't need to be only one thing. And that given we each would observe the other side to make our own measurements separately from everyone else, that we might each end up observing very different results for everything from the existence or qualities of god(s), the nature of an afterlife, or even continued existence at all.
It's a very freeing theology consideration as there's really too much conflict around the need for confirmation from others of one's own beliefs. Maybe it's better to embrace agreeing to disagree as a foundational premise (and possibly even the entire point of our present existence - a normal and randomly distributed world in which to begin and self-define before a relative next phase).
Which was in turn strongly informed by the Epicurean version by way of Lucretius.
Both of which really fail to think through the concept in light of their views of continued evolution.
If humanity is but a stepping stone to something greater, then the initial events would predate its emergence but the recurrence would postdate its existence.
So the rejection of divine involvement or role in our existence based on the premise of natural origins is no longer as persuasive in a paradigm where God can end up being the product of continued evolution past the point of humanity (an uber-Übermensch), then preceding the recurrence of past events.
More concretely using modern technical parallels - even if humanity develops from natural origins, our ability to recreate or simulate versions of ourselves from the past in recurring events need not fit the identical constraints of our initial conditions by virtue of our progress from them.
Nietzsche had the right ingredients with the broad concept of the ubermensch and eternal recurrence, but his mixing of them leaves a lot to be desired.
Late reply, thanks for good points, esp. the position of Lucretius in
bridging the Greeks. I imagine Nietzsche unable to recognise a total
contradiction in his philosophy as problematic, but rather saying "I'm
all too human too" :) respects
Hmm, even just reading the Wikipedia article has brought up some annoying philosophical/physics questions. I think we should instead aim to hit a critical mass of supporters with feel-good pablum and hopefully one of them will be good at arguing with philosophers, as that is beyond me. :)
Some basic thoughts could be:
Since you are the only immortal one from your point of view, all of your loved ones will die before you, so don’t worry too much about meddling in their affairs or changing them, just love them unconditionally. Your time with them is brief, so you may as well enjoy it.
Make good memories together, you will carry them along eternally (meanwhile, from others’ point of view, you will die at some point, but they will go on forever, so give them some good memories of you).
Work toward the world and society you want to live in forever.
Hold yourself to unusually high standards, because you will have to deal with the consequences of your actions for an unusually long time. Also someday you will probably be noticed as one of the earliest immortals, so try to live a life that stands up to some scrutiny.
To avoid the stress of being incompatible with modern values, you’ll have to keep updating your moral framework. Big jumps in your moral framework will be unpleasant to deal with mentally, so keep up with where society is going. You don’t have the benefit of dying and becoming a product of your time at some point.