On 31 xxx -1, Marchal wrote: > I have probably missed something (in the 10^9 episodes!), but I still > cannot figure out why should "my" measure decrease with "time".
At least, unlike some q-immorters, you admit that you do not think measure decreases with time. > At least with comp, it seems to me that the measure can only grow, > for I can have only a countable set of past histories, and (even "without > immortality") "I" have a uncountable set of futur "histories" > (continuations). > > If you (or any one else) could elaborate on this, and/or refer me to the > discussion-list, or to an URL, it would help me to understand the point. Before that, I want to establish a key point. Do you admit that if, in fact, your measure were to decrease (for example) exponentially with time, you would not be immortal in any meaningful sense? If you admit that, then we could have a discussion about whether measure does decrease or not. If you do not admit it, then we can't have much of a discussion since we apparently wouldn't be speaking the same language. > I'm still > open to the idea that such a measure doesn't exist (in wich case comp > would be false). > Where does your assurance come from ? If implementations of computations are well defined, I take the measure to be proportional to the number of such (there may be possible generalizations); more generally one could have a new law of physics to assign some other measure. If computationalism is false, one would need some new law to assign a measure on observations. Either way I don't see a problem with the idea of measure. - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate "I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/