Comment on Three greats who we’ve lost by Edo

I must say when people say in Some branches you do survive and on Some branches you don’t it does seem to tautologically say you survive. I sure as hell hope not. For example my grandparents both did euthanasie, I sure as hell hope they did not survive somehow. So you need Some definition of what I even is in this theory that maps on daily reality. And it does make me affraid that Tony Legett didn’t even understand why this wouldn’t lead to quantum immortality when taken seriously. I had a e-mail conversation with a mwi sympathiser but also who thought that the probability wasn’t solved who wrote papers with Lev and he said I do believe that it would lead to immortality in the sense of parfit’s identity. ‘When i asked Suppose, hypothetically, that a person is 95 years old, suffering from extreme irreversible pain, and is considering euthanasia. In the framework you describe, where psychological continuity rather than numerical identity is what matters for survival, would it still be rational for that person to choose euthanasia? He said the following question cannot be fully answered until the probability problem has been solved. If branching is ubiquitous, then it is actually the case that you have psychologically continuous descendants arbitrarily far into the future (though they become increasingly decrepit). However, the MWI must at the same time deem those descendants to be highly improbable. How their existence and their improbability should impact your decision making is somewhat up in the air until the probability problem has been solved. Well I must say it’s quite terrifying that this is up in the air according to Some people. I actually do find it very strange how on 7 minutes Max Tegmark just on 7 minutes says Well this experiment would test it ht://youtu.be/-8y5sDxsCUg?is=BYehKzA3sevb2Rej with a big smile. barely there. Why the hell even say this stuff, either one 1 you believe this and you are terrified 2 you don’t believe this and you think it’s funny or 3 you don’t think it’s a problem that you expect to live on forever and i don’t understand what the hell you are saying. He later took it back with reasoning that death is not binary, which I don’t know why he would thought that would make a difference, other than according to the theory that your experience would follow the alive branch you would just be barely alive. And later I’m seeing a video where hé says his parents are in a sense still alive because of the fact hé keeps their memories alive and they live on in memories etc. Well according to you I just heard they are actually a live in some branch, but somehow that’s not relevant anymore. I asked David deutsch if there is truth value, in saying I would die at 80 years old hé says that’s an equivication of the word I. I asked if a person is saying I’m going to die in 3 months after the doctor said he was gonna die is also an equivication on the word I. He said it depends on the decision you are going to make. Ahhh. What? I said there is no decision. It’s just a statement, of someone who got diagnosed and doesn’t want the pain to continue. No reply. So what is so clear about this theory if the proponents cannot seem to make a single statement that’s completely bonkers to anyone outside of them. I do think that is a serious problem to be honest.