Bruno wrote:
> Saibal wrote:  (complete message below for the FORers)
> >Can't we prove that stars (and for that matter anything we observe)
> >in at least some universes?
> But does "some universes" exists ? To tell you frankly I have a problem
> the word "universe". I guess you take it as meaning the set (let us say)
> all what exists. But then I want to distinguish things which "really"
> from things which are only distinguished from a relative observer point of
> Tell me how you draw the line. Is there a line?

The Great Programmer can presumably compute certain correlations  between
our obserations of what we think is a star and the state of the observed
system itself.  As I see it the Great Programmer outputs descriptions,
including descriptions of an astronomer observing a star. Why can't the
Great Programmer check the description of the astronomer of a star against
his own description?

> >Since we have identical copies in those
> >universes, it really doesn't matter.
> Why ? Suppose I love Moscow and that I am duplicated from Brussels to both
> Washington and Moscow. And suppose that after that event I wake up in
> I hope you understand I am not happy. From time to time I get consolating
> words by my doppelbrother phones from Moscow. But still ...

What I meant was that the observer should have an exactly identical copy in
a universe in which stars do exist. So the observer can't tell if stars do
or don't exist, but it doesn't matter because he is exactly identical to an
observer observing a real star.

 In your example you should replace Moscow by a virtual reality
representation of Moscow. One copy of you travels to the real Moscow, the
other copy is a digital version of you that is sent to the cyber-version
Moscow.  Suppose that we didn't tell you that we would make a digital copy
of you. In that case your digital copy would think he is in ``real´´ Moscow.
> It is important for the stellist and galaxies lovers that stars and
> remains "existing" in the "universes" as seen by the "really vast"
majority of
> their vast number of doppelbrothers and sisters ... This gives the degree
> solidity. It makes worth acting following personal thought, respecting the
> ten thousand counterfactuals and apparent causalities.
> The moral I would draw from MW or comp (you know I think comp -> MW), is
> if you are enthusiast (let us say) and if you want to *stay* enthusiast,
> you have no better means that trying to share that enthusiasm with the
most vast
> possible collection of doppelbrothersisters. No?

Yes but shouldn't all the ``oppelbrothersisters´´ be identified?


Reply via email to