Le lun. 24 juin 2019 à 22:00, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> a écrit :
> > > On 6/24/2019 12:56 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le lun. 24 juin 2019 à 20:52, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected]> a écrit : > >> >> >> On 6/24/2019 11:08 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> Le lun. 24 juin 2019 à 19:30, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> [email protected]> a écrit : >> >>> >>> >>> On 6/24/2019 2:29 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Le lun. 24 juin 2019 à 11:18, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> >>>> On 24 Jun 2019, at 05:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/23/2019 5:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 21 Jun 2019, at 21:49, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/21/2019 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 21 Jun 2019, at 09:04, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:26 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> To disconfirm MWI you'd have to observe statistics far from the >>>>> expected value, >>>>> >>>> >>>> To make my point more strongly, that is the wrong way round. >>>> Observation of statistics far from the expected value is what would be >>>> required to confirm MWI. >>>> >>>> >>>> I don’t see this at all. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The fact that we don't observe such results is the strongest possible >>>> case against MWI! >>>> >>>> >>>> ? >>>> >>>> The probability to see a deviation is the same in both Everett, and >>>> Copenhagen. The deviation expected is the same, so if there is a deviation, >>>> it can hardly be used to claim one theory is more correct than the other. >>>> >>>> >>>> But as Bruce points out Tegmark's machine gun experiment is effectively >>>> being carried out by each of us. >>>> >>>> >>>> That is quantum immortality. On this list I have defend this, but >>>> Tegmark rejected it, and claimed that the survival to quantum suicide does >>>> not entail quantum immortality. He might have changed his mind since, >>>> perhaps. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So if each of us lives on a million years in some branch of the MW, >>>> then each of us will experience 99.9% of our life as a very old person >>>> among people younger than 100yrs. >>>> >>>> >>>> Unless there are intimidate realities in between Earth and Heaven. >>>> >>>> >>>> It would still imply that each person would experience only a small >>>> part of their existence surrounded by other persons whose age differed by >>>> less that 120yr from their own. And so each of us should be surprised that >>>> we find ourself in exactly that kind of world. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Using some anthropoid argument, but like fine tuning, I tend to agree >>>> with Vic that is is not really convincing, and should be handled >>>> mathematically. Only progress in the mathematical theology will show if >>>> this threat Mechanism or not. >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>> >>> The thing is we should first be born before being 1000000 years... so it >>> seems not surprising finding yourself "young", that you are with other >>> "young" people. >>> >>> >>> That's seems to implicitly assume that everybody starts at the same >>> time, so they are young together and then old together (in the branches >>> they survive). I see no justification for conditioning on being young, >>> since the point of the argument is that given quantum immortality the time >>> you are young is of measure zero. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> You have to be young first, your actual moment is not randomly sampled >> from all possible you moments, it is ordered. As very old is very unlikely, >> when in your first years, you should not find yourself around very old >> people. >> >> >> What is "ordered"? A sample is just a sample, it has no order. If >> quantum immortality is true, then you must exist at all ages. And a sample >> from that distribution is unlikely to find you young. Sure, if you >> condition on being young, then you will see young people around >> you...because whether you are young or not you will see young people around >> you. The problem is that YOU are most likely to be old. >> > > The thing is you had to be young first. You're talking with ASSA in mind. > ASSA is nonsense. > > > So if I go on a thousand mile journey I'm most likely to find myself > within a mile of my starting point. I think THAT's nonsense. > You're not talking about mwi but a theory where moments exist by themselves and are selected randomly... That's nonsense. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7a863fb3-f5c8-608f-41ca-8386ba9d4168%40verizon.net > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7a863fb3-f5c8-608f-41ca-8386ba9d4168%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAqS8HcvE73XrOkOCJPrOaefanGjBZ6yHAj6O4hS6Hmxsg%40mail.gmail.com.
