Jesse, thanks for the explanation you gave to Norman. I did not want to ask
something similar, so I benefit from it as well.

My question however is a more fundamental one:
why are we stuck in a MWI or its infinitely expanded format, where qualia,
systems, functions, ideation, whatever are unrestricted and maybe quite
different from ours here, CORNERED into a time-concept of this (our) feeble
little universe?
Same to all principles expresed amply about dimensions, comp, space,
Q-considerations, even reality and ourselves?

Either we take it seriously that 'other' universes (units of the existence
whatever that may mean) are DIFFERENT, or we make a template of ourselves
(our world) and call it the infinite aspects.

(The same way of thinking how the age of this universe (date of the BB) was
calculated in a linear retrogradation maintaining for those early and
absolutely different 'physical' conditions all our 'laws' of this system. -
IFFF the univers really is expanding, of course, even then chaotically, not
linearly as it is rolled back.)

I don't think I really can expect a reply to this question: I am in the same
boat of reductionist thinking, just dream about more.

John Mikes
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:14 AM
Subject: Re: Implications of MWI

> >From: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >CC: <>
> >Subject: Re: Implications of MWI
> >Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:30:31 -0700
> >
> >Jonathan,
> >     If it is true that “In infinite time and infinite space, whatever
> >happen, must happen, not only once but an infinite number of times,” then
> >what does probability mean?  In your example below, there must be an
> >infinity of worlds where Colin Powell is president and an infinity of
> >worlds
> >where your 6-year old niece is president.  Are you saying that the Colin
> >Powell infinity is bigger than the 6-year old niece infinity?
> >Norman
> Yes, the concept of assigning different probabilities to different
> subsets of an infinite set is what the branch of math called "measure
> theory" is all about (see ),
> that's why you often see people on this list talking about the "measure"
> different worlds or observer-moments. As an example, if the possible
> outcomes are the set of real numbers from 0 to 1, and if the probability
> function was y=2x, then the probability that the outcome would be within
> given range (say, x=0.24 to x=0.97878...) would just be the area under the
> function in that range (note that the area of y=2x from x=0 to x=1 is 1,
> just as it should be if it's supposed to represent probability).
> Jesse

Reply via email to