Jesse Mazer wrote (to Russell Standish):

>Aha! You've hit on something similar to my own pet TOE, which is that the >global measure on observer-moments can somehow be derived from a sort of >"theory of the anthropic principle" which would have to blend in with some >type of formal theory of consciousness, a bit like what the philosopher >David Chalmers proposes. Here was a post I wrote on this in September: > >http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m3143.html [see below] It's a formidable post. I'm less and less sure about a *global* measure or probability, though. I do think there are absolute structures on the set of observer moment (or possible universe) from which the relative measure can be derived. But I don't believe there is a third person sense in the question "knowing that I do not exist, what is the probability that I will feel being an amoeba, a bacteria, or a human". And from any first person point of view the probability of being me is 1. George Levy argued quite well about that. The probability of immediately "staying me" is infinitesimally closed to 1. That's true for all of us, humans, bacteria, ... The "laws of mind and matter" can be derived from a sort of Turing-Tropic principle; (just ask a UM to introspect herself a little bit, and listen). Generality, Power and non triviality comes from Church Thesis and Incompleteness. This does not mean other road does not exist for sure. Both QM and comp comes with big set of very different formulations, which appears to be fundamentally equivalent. Bruno