At 2/21/02, you wrote: >If you are saying that it is the uncountability itself of copies that >imparts indeterminacy, or changes the preponderancy, then effectively you >are also saying that random selections from all the reals between -1 and +10 >do not converge towards a ratio of 10:1 for positive to negative values - I >can't see what other result is possible.
That is you model and it is one dimensional [call it x] that is it has one venue. Now add a dimension call it y that is infinite and perpendicular to your example's x. This is an infinite number of venues. Now randomly sample on the xy plane. The area of the plane below zero on the x dimension is the same as the area above zero on the x dimension i.e. infinite = no bias as to sign mix of the resulting random sample of reals on x. snip >there is no more >necessity to have no preponderance of any particular type of physical >universe than to have no preponderance of a particular type of galaxy, or >grain of sand. With this I disagree when describing the Everything because on its face it attempts to extract information from an informationless source. Your example from within a particular universe [intrinsic information] is not applicable because here its any style you want. >(Note also that copies in the sense referred to in the paper would not be >produced by any 'nested Everything' (assuming they are a legitimate >possibility) - With this I would agree, mine is not a one venue model. >each different possible nested Everything would have to be a >different state, for which there may or may not be copies, dependent on the >correct interpretation of NAP.) What you seem to be saying re my approach using the above analysis of your example is that the boundaries of the plane in the y dimension may meander. With this I agree. Actually its essential. So what? The areas above and below the x = 0 line are still equal. Hal
