Jesse Mazer wrote:

Also, I'm still confused about your original argument:"Since you agree that the number of histories is on a continuum, youmust accept that no matter how large or small a segment of thecontinuum is considered, the number of histories is the same. Hencemeasure is the same for any observer."What is the "number of histories" that is the same here? Weren't yousaying the number is infinity? And do you agree that in general it isnot correct to say that because two sets contain an infinite number ofelements, that means their measure must be the same?

Jesse,

`I am only talking about the cardinality of the continuum as applied to`

`the number of histories and its implication regarding measure: Since the`

`number of histories included in the past of an observer - and consistent`

`with his present - has the same infinity as the continuum, then this`

`cardinality is the same for any observer. To ask an observer about his`

`own measure (when he is alive of course) is meaningless.`

`As an example consider the following hypothetical situation: suppose`

`that one of the greatest scientist such as Isaac Newton had never been`

`born. Classical Mechanics would still have been invented, but years`

`later, maybe centuries later and the course of our civilazation would`

`have been different. Surely his birth was an unlikely event. Does it`

`mean that our civilizaton has a low measure compared to retarded`

`civilization where he was never born? It sure does not "feel" like it -`

`from a first person point of view.`

`The only way to talk meaningfully about measure is when you can compare`

`two situations from a third person point of view: for example, if you`

`witness someone die from a freak event you could conclude that he`

`continued living in a world with lower measure than yours. This is a`

`third person point of view. However, from that person's point of view`

`(first person), the freak event never happened and therefore he will`

`consider his measure to be just as high as yours.`

George