-- On Mon, 2/9/09, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Suppose I did something extremely risky as a child and survived. The
> multiverse is as a result much more densely filled with my childhood OM's.
> Now, it is true that a randomly sampled OM out of all the possible OM's
> available to me is more likely to be one of these childhood OM's, but random
> sampling of this sort is not how life works. When I anticipate my future, the
> only options I need consider are those OM's which have my present OM in their
> immediate subjective past. I can't jump backwards into my childhood and I
> can't stand still at the present moment if my present OM's measure is
> increased enormously, any more than can I suddenly find myself a different
> person entirely because their measure is a lot greater than mine.
> Given that I am who I am now, there are constraints as to what candidate OM's
> are allowed in the lucky dip for my next conscious moment.
This sort of talk about "random sampling" and "luck" is misleading and is
exactly why I broke down the roles of effective probability into the four
categories I did in the paper.
If you are considering future versions of yourself, in the MWI sense, there is
no randomness involved. Depending on how you define "you", "you" will either
be all of them, or "you" are just an observer-moment and can consider them to
be "other people". Regardless of definitions, this case calls for the use of
Caring Measure for decision making.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
