On 6/24/2019 9:58 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le lun. 24 juin 2019 à 22:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :On 6/24/2019 1:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:Le lun. 24 juin 2019 à 22:00, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :On 24 Jun 2019, at 05:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 6/21/2019 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 21 Jun 2019, at 09:04, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:26 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <[email protected] <mailto:[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.Can you explain why it's nonsense. Can you explain why I must find myself on the first mile of my journey?I don't know for you but when I make a thousand mile journey, i'm living every miles of it, not a random last portion of it, and it starts with the first mile.
But why does that change the probability of me being on mile 50 or mile 900? You seem to be claiming that because they are ordered I can never be on the last part...which of course then means I couldn't be on the next to last part either. In fact I apparently couldn't even be on any part, because that would be later than some earlier part.
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/1c72fa29-8599-6165-30bf-ed4cb3e2636b%40verizon.net.
