--- On Wed, 2/11/09, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/2/11 Jack Mallah <jackmal...@yahoo.com> > > And if your measure were to drop off dramatically overnight, it is > > equivalent to saying that many _more people_ woke up in your bed today as > > compared to the number of people who will wake up in your bed tommorrow. > > > > Which is equivalent to saying that, for all practical purposes, you will > > probably die overnight. And that is the point. > > > I don't think so, the point is that there is still someone who will wake up > in the bed tomorrow... as long as the measure is not null this is true, and > that's what count for the argument to be valid.
There are some people who will, but relatively few. That is what counts for QS to be invalid. > So what you are saying is that at some point the measure fall to be strictly > null... and that needs an argument from your part. No, I never suggested it is zero. It doesn't have to be. > Also you did not answer the question about the realness feeling of observer > B... he has twice less measure according to you, does it feel less > alive/real/conscious ? I answered that previously. Measure affects the commonness of an observation, not what it feels like. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---