George Levy wrote:

Jesse,the infinite number of histories refer to the continuum of histories. Thefirst person observer can only perceive through his own experiments thatphysics in his own world, provides a infinite number of histories as largeas the continuum. All he knows is that his own history is embedded in acontinuum of histories.George

`I don't understand why he can't say there's a measure on that continuum,`

`though. And surely an infinite number of histories can be broken into a`

`finite number of subsets based on a single criterion, like "the set of all`

`future histories in which the next roll of this die will come up 6" and "the`

`set of all future histories in which the next roll of this die will not come`

`up 6", with different measures assigned to the subsets (in this case, one`

`would ordinarily assume the first subset has measure 1/6 and the second has`

`measure 5/6).`

Also, I'm still confused about your original argument:

`"Since you agree that the number of histories is on a continuum, you must`

`accept that no matter how large or small a segment of the continuum is`

`considered, the number of histories is the same. Hence measure is the same`

`for any observer."`

`What is the "number of histories" that is the same here? Weren't you saying`

`the number is infinity? And do you agree that in general it is not correct`

`to say that because two sets contain an infinite number of elements, that`

`means their measure must be the same?`

Jesse