Dear Norman,

   You ask a very important question!

As I see it, we need to show that mere *existence* is equivalent to "occurance". I would argue that "*occurance* is relational and contextual and *existence* is not. Therefor, the mere a priori *existence* of all possible OMs, Copies, Worlds, or whatever, DOES NOT NECESSITATE *Occurance*. It merely allows the *possibility*.

Kindest regards,


----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:22 AM
Subject: Have all possible events occurred?

"Stathis Papaioannou" writes:  Of course you are right: there is no way to
distinguish the original from the copy, given that the copying process works as intended. And if you believe that everything possible exists, then there
will always be at least one version of you who will definitely experience
whatever outcome you are leaving to chance.  Probability is just a first
person experience of a universe which is in fact completely deterministic,
because we cannot access the parallel worlds where our copies live, and
because even if we could, we can only experience being one person at a time.

When you say "if you believe that everything possible exists" are you
implying that everything possible need NOT exist (thus refuting Tegmark)?
Wouldn't this mean that space-time was not infinite? What hypothesis could
explain finite space-time?

If you believe that everything possible exists, does this not mean that
there exists a universe like ours, only as it will appear 10^100 years in
our future?  And that there also exists a universe like ours, only as it
appeared 10^9 years in the past?  And that, in all worlds, all possible
events have occurred?

Reply via email to