>>332246 (OP)
My interpretation is similar. I think, though, that you're missing something important, which I realized a long time ago, which is that the 'moment of death' is a human concept, not an objective one. There is no 'last heart beat' or 'zero-electrical-activity-in-brain' which truly defines that exact boundary between life and death. Those are just heuristics that we've devised. And they do serve their purpose, but that purpose is to create a legal formality, a point when we can most certainly, conservatively, declare that a death has already occurred.
This is a problem. If quantum immortality is true, then this idea that time will 'roll-back' to another timeline the moment the bullet pierces your cerebellum just doesn't make any sense. Exactly what is the criteria for that? I suppose by the thought experiment, the quantum timelines all simultaneously exist, and losing your life means that your consciousness 'wakes up' in some neighbor timeline. And really, those timelines were always there, even if you're not aware of them now, which means that consciousness is sort of the factor that's responsible for this. It's not caused by death so much as a significant loss of consciousness which leads to a collapse of the timeline for our current selves.
Unfortunately, that could mean that we could lose, an arm, an eye, or even a chunk of prefrontal cortex, and as long as some consciousness is present... our current and neighboring timelines would continue on. The brain is robust. You could imagine surviving like this, with one brain cell dying at a time. How can quantum immortality even make sense if that's the case? All those times you would have died when you slipped or got hit by something... wouldn't it be more likely that you would be a vegetable by now?
Then again... maybe we're just not vegetables yet. With consciousness being a bit of a gradient, we are still in a world where we our minds are remarkably intact and functional. I think we can see that with age and injury, our thoughts slow down, and our consciousness becomes weaker. If we look at how information in the brain or a computer moves, these things both seem to have a 'clock-rate' so to speak, and some people's brains run faster or slower, and it varies over time. ( Reaction speed is known to be a surprisingly powerful proxy for IQ, too. ) Another question is whether consciousness can be delineated in space at all. Where does the self begin and end? If I write my thoughts in a notebook, and rely on it as if it were my own mind, that is similar to a computer attached to network storage, which isn't really very different between storing that information in RAM or on an SSD. If consciousness and thought are defined as operations on information, then it seems like a human being is a nexus of influence in a soup of a consciousness-enabling substrate. Our 'self' is not only dependent on the brain and body, but also the symbolic relation between configurations of material that are manifested reality. One program can be run on many different different computers, and maybe the soul exists across many timelines. It's interesting, but we can also see there's lots of problems for a naive interpretation of quantum immortality. Selfhood seems much harder to define than consciousness, which was already difficult in itself.
When I put all this together though, I see a glimpse of death, which makes me suspect that quantum immortality may be partially correct, but even more horribly than what you imagine. All this thinking about information makes me realize that the true 'first-person' subjective form of death is like an event horizon, like a black hole where information is no longer able to escape. Maybe that subjective experience of death is like watching the entire world speed up around you, each thought taking a century to form, as all the symbolic fragments of your mind are spread out into the water and dirt, distorted, and dissolved. Spaghettified into oblivion, your frustrated thoughts are still agonizingly lucid as you persist for eternity, perhaps until the next karmic cycle, or God grants his afterlife, or what have you. Food for thought.
>>332283
niggerfaggot