Brent Meeker wrote:
> Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Le Jeudi 26 Octobre 2006 18:02, 1Z a écrit : > >> Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >>>> But c breaks down into: > >>>> c1) I experience something coherent that obeys the laws of > >>>> physics > >>>> and > >>>> c2) I experience wild and crazy "harry Potter" stuff. > >>>> > >>>> The memory-traces corresponding to c2 are a possible > >>>> configuration of matter, and so must exist in Platonia. But > >>>> I only experience c1. > >>> That means nothing... if you had experienced c2 you would never write > >>> this... > >> I could have experienced periods of causal > >> stability mixed with periods of HP. I could still communicate during > >> one > >> of the stable periods. > > > > Well in typical Everett MWI you also could... > > > >>> and in physical MW, HP/WR are not ruled out but of very low measure which > >>> means there is 100% chance that some instance (a tiny tiny number but at > >>> least one) of you will experience it. > >> Yes, yes, yes. I am objecting here to everythingism -- mathematical MW > >> --. not physical MW. > > > > But why ? consequences on HP/WR are exactly the same on both flavor ! In any > > case you have to have a measure function, in both case probability is not > > about what happens and what doesn't but the relative proportion of "what > > happens" at the time a choice is made. Even an infinitesimal probability > > is "instantiated" with 100% chance in MW. Since quantum mechanics does not > > prevent very weird events from occuring, those events then occur and are as > > real as this real. The chance to win the lottery is low, yet some wins... > > No they are not the same. QM rules out lots of things - anything that > doesn't conserve 4-momentum for example. That is true. > Even more to the point QM rules out any future that doesn't evolve from the > present in accordance with the Hamiltonian of the universe. It also rules > out any universe that doesn't conform to quantum mechanics, e.g. a Newtonian > universe. The measure of QM universes relative to "mathematically consistent > universes" is essentially zero. I put "mathematically consistent universes" > in scare quotes because I understand what it means for statements and > propositions to be consistent, but I'm not sure what it means for universes, > simpliciter, to be consistent. That is true to. Consistency is a property of (sets of) propositions, not of structures. But if you Platonise all of current mathematics, it will divide into incompatible regions due to incompatible axioms. > Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
