I've been anesthetized twice. I don't remember any dreams whatsoever, but I had the distant feeling that I did dream upon waking (though they may have happened as the drug was loosening its hold).

But you still experience things when you sleep, hence are observing. Also, quantum insomnia should exist if you're correct, but it doesn't.

I don't see how a Boltzmann brain spontaneously forming could ever be more likely than existing in a universe with all the infrastructure necessary to support a natural brain - even if that infrastructure beats some amazing odds, it only has to maintain itself. The theory further requires that mind unification be true.

And I don't see how a death being "natural" makes it OK.

That's not what I said (though it is a good reason to be suspicious of attempts to remove it.) I'll just leave it that I have some philosophical opinions which lead me to believe it is not annihilation.

Also, the baseball example is not a natural phenomenon. If it were, I'd consider it rational to accept it as a good thing.

Actually, I just realized there's no reason you would remain conscious in QI. Surely the damage to your brain and body would put you into a coma - a fate I'd like to avoid, but definitely better than Literally Hell.

Also, what is all this talk about suicide? All I said was that I plan to die normally. You guys are reading weird things into that...

To be clear: your argument is that every human being who has ever lived may suffer eternally after death, and there are good reasons for not caring...?

That requires an answer that, at the very least, you should be able to put in your own words. How does our subjective suffering improve anything in the worlds where you die?

Yes, you either lose or you win. Two choices.

No, it isn't. The same thing will happen to everyone in your branch (you don't see it, of course, but it will subjectively happen to them).

Perhaps you don't understand what the argument says. You, as in the person you are right now, is going to experience that. Not a infinitesimal proportion of other 'yous' while the majority die. Your own subjective experience, 100% of it.

Why wouldn't it create random minds if it's trying to grab as much 'human-space' as possible?

EDIT: Why focus on the potential of quantum immortality at all? There's no special reason to focus on what happens when we *die*, in terms of AI simulation.

By "essentially impossible" I meant "extremely improbable". The word "essentially" was meant to distinguish this from "physically impossible".

I don't see how it refutes the possibility of QI, then.

There is a useful distinction between knowing the meaning of an idea and knowing its truth. I'm disagreeing with the claim that "all of our measure is going into those branches where we survive", understood in the sense that only those branches have moral value (see What Are Probabilities, Anyway?), in particular the other branches taken together have less value. See the posts linked from the grandparent comment for a more detailed discussion (I've edited it a bit).

This meaning could be different from one you intend, in which case I'm not understanding your claim correctly, and I'm only disagreeing with my incorrect interpretation of it. But in that case I'm not understanding what you mean by "all of our measure is going into those branches where we survive", not that "all of our measure is going into those branches where we survive" in the sense you intend, because the latter would require me to know the intended meaning of that claim first, at which point it becomes possible for me to fail to understand its truth.

According to QI, we (as in our internal subjective experience) will continue on only in branches where we stay alive. Since I care about my subjective internal experience, I wouldn't want it to suffer (if you disagree, press a live clothes iron to your arm and you'll see what I mean).