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.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
