2009/2/11 Jack Mallah <jackmal...@yahoo.com> > > --- On Mon, 2/9/09, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Also I still don't understand how I could be 30 years old and not 4, > there are a lot more OM of 4 than 30... it is the argument you use for 1000 > years old, I don't see why it can hold for 30 ? > > Quentin, why would the measure of 4 year olds be "a lot more" than the > measure of 30 year olds? I have already explained that the effect of > differentiation (eg by learning) is exactly balanced by the increased number > of versions to sum over (the N/N explanation) and the effect of child > mortality is small. >
I don't get it. Why should the "measure" suddenly decrease at 80 (or 100) years old ? Why not 30 ? Why not 4 ? Also this is still assuming ASSA and does not take in accound that my next momemt is not a random momemt (with high measure) against all momemts, but a random momemt again all momemts that have my current moment as memories/previous. Even if being Napoleon at the age of 30 would have a measure 10^30 higher than any individual measure of momemts that has composed me so far... I'm not Napoleon at age 30, my next moment will never be Napoleon at age 30 and never will and that changes everything. I know that in 1 minute, it will be 1 minute later from now whatever the measure of now and in one minute is. Also Stathis as a point, you said in the A1/A2 (A) vs B case that A as 2 times the measure of B... But B will be with probabilty 1... does B feel less real ? less conscious (that would contradict the assumption B was a conscious moment). If the measure doesn't change anything to these attributes... then however small this measure is as long as it is not striclty null, the experienced moment will be real... as real as the real here and now is. > > Is there some third factor that you think comes into play? Can you > estimate quantitatively what you think the measure ratio would be? > > > Also even if absolute measure had sense, do you mean that the measure of > a 1000 years old OM is strictly zero (not infinitesimal, simply and strictly > null)? > > No, it is not zero, but it is extremely small. I have never suggested that > there is no long time tail in the measure distribution that extends to > infinite time. Of course there is. Any MWIer knows that. But it is > negligable. You will never experience it, or depending on definitions, at > least not in any significant measure. The general argument against > immortality proves that. It is no more significant then any other > very-small-measure set of observations, such as the ones in which you are > king of the demons. You might as well forget about it. > > So even if being 1000 years had a so small but not null measure, it will come into existence by MWI, then the person which will be living this OM having my currents life as past will feel as real as I am... so what's the difference ? Regards, Quentin > > > > > > > > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
