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. Cheers John Mikes ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <email@example.com> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:14 AM Subject: Re: Implications of MWI > >From: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >CC: <firstname.lastname@example.org> > >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 can > >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 infinite > subsets of an infinite set is what the branch of math called "measure > theory" is all about (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_theory ), > that's why you often see people on this list talking about the "measure" of > 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 any > 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 > >