George Levy wrote: > I think that measure of self is always the same as observed by the self, > independently of the observer's frame of reference. .. just like the speed of > light.
I just want to continue the train of thought about measure and perform a type of UD experiment that Bruno has been talking about to show that the constancy of measure as seen from the first person perspective is a reasonable hypothesis. Many years ago I read about a parachutist whose parachute had not fully open. He was saved by a fluky combination of circumstances. He happened to land through a tree and on the ground covered with a deep layer of snow. He got away with some broken bones, but remained alive. I don't remember his exact name but suffice it to say, for our thought experiment that we now live in a subset S1 of the branching pattern (in the plenitude) in which those unlikely events took place. Let the set of "other" branches in which the man died be named S0. >From a third person point of view ( a la Jacques Mallah for example) the number of branches in S0 are more numerouse than the number of branches in S1. Hence measure M0> M1. Now lets examine the converse situation. Another man jumps in a parachute, the parachute does not open and the man dies. This event is unlikely but has occured a few times. There are worlds in the plenitude where this man lives, but not in our world. He is dead. These other worlds are extremely unlikely for they must include a rare combination of circumstances (tree, snow, water, partially opened parachute, etc) Let the worlds where this man lives be the set of branches S2. Clearly from the third person perspective, the number of branches in S2 is much smaller than the number of branches in S1. Hence M2<M1 Therefore we have the third person perspective of measure M2<M1<M0 Yet the worlds S0, S1, S2, are all physically speaking identical except for the existence or non existence of one person. The laws of physics are the same. Now let's take a step back and replace the very emotionally charged facts of seeing a man live or die after a parachute jump by simple "inorganic" facts, millions and millions of them which characterize each branch in the plenitude. The important thing to keep in mind is that none of these facts are privileged. The are just random branching outcomes that affect the history of the observer without directly affecting his life. There is no reason why these unprivileged facts should affect the first person measure of the world. Now here is my relativistic assumption: If an observer located in S0 attempts to measure M0 (number of branches corresponding to S0), he would find the same number as an observer in S1 attempting to measure M1 and as an observer in S2 attempting to measure M2 - Reason: the laws of physics are the same. The only difference between these worlds are facts which do not affect the existence of the observer. These facts only affect the history of the world that he can observe. George