[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Wei writes:
> > If by flying-rabbit you mean any deviation from simplicity, then I agree
> > with you. Notice that our own universe is full of quantum randomness, but
> > we don't see any pattern to the randomness. Similarly, an observer in a
> > Conway's life univer
Wei writes:
> If by flying-rabbit you mean any deviation from simplicity, then I agree
> with you. Notice that our own universe is full of quantum randomness, but
> we don't see any pattern to the randomness. Similarly, an observer in a
> Conway's life universe may observe these anomolies that yo
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 09:39:09AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This suggests that the simplicity explanation against flying-rabbit
> universes is not strong, because the total collection of flying-rabbit
> universes is close in measure to the simple universe to which they
> rerpesent except
Wei writes:
> If you think about it more, I think you'll realize that the greater number
> of observer-moments observing flying rabbits or similar happenings can't
> make up for the much smaller measure of each such observer-moment.
> Unfortunately right now I can't find a way to easily articulate
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 02:24:07PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hence the all universe principle does not easily explain the absence of
> flying rabbits, because while flying-rabbit universes are more complex
> and of lower measure, there are so many more ways to come up with complex
> univer
Wei Dai Wrote
>On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:57:16PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> For example, suppose he took a drug which made his mental processes
>> become confused. He was no longer sure of basic facts about himself
>> and the universe. This mental state would no longer be bound to one
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Wei writes, quoting Hal
> > > In general, one might expect those minds with less observational power
> > > and less specific knowledge and understanding of the universe to have
> > > larger measure.
> >
> > Yes, but that doesn't mean you should be surprised if you f
Wei writes, quoting Hal
> > In general, one might expect those minds with less observational power
> > and less specific knowledge and understanding of the universe to have
> > larger measure.
>
> Yes, but that doesn't mean you should be surprised if you find yourself
> having more observational p
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:57:16PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For example, suppose he took a drug which made his mental processes
> become confused. He was no longer sure of basic facts about himself
> and the universe. This mental state would no longer be bound to one
> specific universe
Russel wrote:
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hal wrote:
> >
> >
> > > One of the concepts we have explored is that all universes and hence
> > > all minds exist, but that some observer-moments have greater "measure"
> > > than others. This may help to explain why we observe the kind of
univer
Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
>
> Hal wrote:
>
>
> > One of the concepts we have explored is that all universes and hence
> > all minds exist, but that some observer-moments have greater "measure"
> > than others. This may help to explain why we observe the kind of universe
> > that we do, because we
Hal wrote:
> One of the concepts we have explored is that all universes and hence
> all minds exist, but that some observer-moments have greater "measure"
> than others. This may help to explain why we observe the kind of universe
> that we do, because we must be observer-moments that have rel
One of the concepts we have explored is that all universes and hence
all minds exist, but that some observer-moments have greater "measure"
than others. This may help to explain why we observe the kind of universe
that we do, because we must be observer-moments that have relatively
large measure.
13 matches
Mail list logo
