Hi Quentin, Stathis
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi QuentinHi list, I have one more question about measure :I don't understand the concept of 'increasing' and 'decreasing' measure if I assume everything exists. Because if everything exists... every OM has a successor (and I'd say it must always have more than one), and concerning good or bad OM, every OM has "good" successor and "bad" successor. What I want to mean is that, I get 100% chance that at least one (I'd say many) of my futur selves will go in hell, and at least one (I'd say also many) will have great experiences. And this, whatever I do... because when I do something, the universe split, and there are branches were I do other thing. I can't constraint the choice. So what is the meaning of increasing and decreasing measure ? What is wrong in every OM has a successor in an everything context ? Quentin
In my opinion you are right in suspecting that there is something wrong with increasing or decreasing measure. Since a conscious observer cannot subjectively distinguish between a large (infinite) number of observer moment, he occupies or "surfs" over all of them. Taking a quantum branch does not reduce the number of observer moments because they are still an infinite number of them, and merging branches does not increase the number of observer moment because their sum is also infinite.
For this reason I am a firm believer that one can only talk about relative measure (and the RSSA) and not about absolute measure (and the ASSA). Relative measure is the ratio of the number of observer moments before an event and the number after the event. Thus in discussing measure you must define two points: before and after. And you must define an observer and the person or object being observed. If the number of OMs goes to infinity, we can still take a ratio "in the limit".
Since the actual number of OMs is infinite, we can normalize measure by defining relative measure for an observer observing himself as equal to 1: that is the number of OMs for an observer divided by the number of OMs for the observer). A given observer can then calculate the relative measure for someone else going between two states as the ratio of the number of OM's between those two states.
Thus if an observer carried with him a relative measure measuring instrument (that measures the number of OM's and divides them by themselves) he would find that no matter how risky his behavior is, his own measure remains invariant and fixed at 1. From my own point of view, my relative measure today is not greater or smaller than my relative measure yersterday. The measure of an old and sick man is not greater or smaller than that of a healthy baby that he observes.
Some of the other threads in this list (i.e., another puzzle described by Stathis) discuss experiments in which observers are copied and destroyed. Answers to these questions depend on which two points are selected to define relative measure.
- Re: One more question about measure George Levy
- Re: One more question about measure Bruno Marchal
- Re: One more question about measure Quentin Anciaux
- Re: One more question about measure Russell Standish