Charles Goodwin wrote:
> FIN stands for something ...invented by Jaques Mallah (in much the way
> that Fred Hoyle coined the term 'Big Bang'
Yes I like that!
The reliance by Jacques on the concept of measure is critical to his
thinking. He believes that measure is ABSOLUTE and therefore decreases
upon the trimming of (death of a person in) one branch of the
multiverse. In other words, no matter who does the observing, measure is
the same and goes down upon the trimming of a branch.
For those of us who believe that FIN is possible, we must assume that
measure does not go down upon trimming (death). More precisely, first
person measure as observed by a first person observer remains constant.
Of course third person measure can change. But the critical point is
that measure of self as seen by the self should remain constant. In
other words measure is RELATIVE to the observer. Who is right?
The only assumption is that of an infinite plenitude where all possible
Let's proceed by reductio ad absurdum. Let say that I have a measure
that can be measured in absolute terms. Then this particular me will be
one instance of many other instances. However, in the plenitude all
instances exist which means other instances like me have other measures.
Contradiction. Therefore measure cannot be stated in absolute terms.
Hence measure must be relative. If one tried to obtain an absolute
measure one would find an infinite number.