Le 20-juin-05, à 18:16, Hal Finney a écrit :

Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 19-juin-05, =E0 15:52, Hal Finney a =E9crit :

I guess I would say, I would survive death via anything that does not
reduce my measure.

But if the measure is absolute and is bearing on the OMs, and if that=20 is only determined by their (absolute) Kolmogorov complexity (modulo a=20= constant) associated to the OM ("how" is still a mystery for me(*)),=20
how could anything change the measure of an OM?

That's true, from the pure OM perspective "death" doesn't make sense
because OMs are timeless.  I was trying to phrase things in terms of
the observer model in my reply to Stathis.  An OM wants to preserve
the measure of the observer that it is part of, due to the effects of
evolution.  Decreases in that measure would be the meaning of death,
in the context of the multiverse.

I will keep reading your posts hoping to make sense of it. Still I was about asking you if you were assuming the "multiverse context" or if you were hoping to extract (like me) the multiverse itself from the OMs. In which case, the current answer seems still rather hard to follow. Then in another post you just say:

It's a bit hard for me to come up with a satisfactory answer to this problem, because I don't start from the assumption of a physical universe at all--like Bruno, I'm trying to start from a measure on observer-moments and hope that somehow the appearance of a physical universe can be recovered from the subjective probabilities experienced by observers

And this answers the question. I am glad of your interest in the possibility to explain the universe from OMs, but then, as I said I don't understand how an OM could change its measure. What is clear for me is that an OM (or preferably a 1-person, an OM being some piece of the 1-person) can change its *relative* measure (by decision, choice, will, etc.) of its possible next OMs.



Reply via email to