>From: "Charles Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>you can't apply any sort of statistical argument to your own experience
>unless you assume that you're a typical observer. But if you do that you're
>just assuming the result you want.
Not so. You don't assume you're typical exactly, just that
Bruno, before we get phased out: you quoted Russell:
"> >I raised this very issue in "Why Occams Razor", and came to the
> >conclusion that the only satisfactory "interpreter" is the observer
> >itself"
then you write very smart thoughts (like: "> Modelising near possibilities
by consistent extens
Russell Standish wrote:
>I raised this very issue in "Why Occams Razor", and came to the
>conclusion that the only satisfactory "interpreter" is the observer
>itself.
And so the question resumes into 'what is the observer itself'.
I propose the answer 'the self-referentially sound Lobian machine
<>
I do not know, unfortunately.
But, to me, the interesting point is this one.
About what are "these" (the only ones you personally experience)
talking about, after the explosion? Because "these", due to linearity
and superposition of states, after the explosion, and subsequent time
evoluti
Charles Goodwin wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On the other hand I can't see how FIN is supposed to work, either. I
*think* the argument runs something like this...
>
> Even if you have just had, say, an atom bomb dropped on you, ther
5 matches
Mail list logo
