[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You all seem to assign to "measure" a soul-like quality as if measure had any
> value, as if it is "good" to maximize measure, as if measure has an
> objective, and absolute existence.. like the Ether.
> I believe that in fact, the probability of observing an event LINKED TO YOUR
> OWN EXISTENCE is a relative quantity. Depending in which frame of reference
> you decide to follow you will end up with different results. After reading
> 142 E-mails, I am too tired now to work out the math, but is is clear that
> from the "bird eye" view of an outside observer, you'll come up with one
> probability value, and from the frame of reference attached to the person
> being copied (or fused) you'll end up with a different probability value.
But, George, all any of us has is a subjective perspective. From the point
of view of each of us, we attempt to discern the laws of physics, and make
predictions. I'm just making the assumption that it is possible for us to
know those laws (probabilistically) and then looking at Wei Dai's thought
What do you propose as an alternative?
"Donuts are so sweet and tasty."
-- Homer Simpson