Georges Quenot wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Georges Quénot wrote:
> >
> >> There might be universes interacting one with each other
> >> (though from my viewpoint I would tend to consider a set
> >> of interactive universes as a single universe) but it
> >> might also be that the one in which we live is among
> >> the ones that are not causally connected to any other.
> >
> > if every possibe universe is instantiated, then universes
> > where a duplicate of me witnesses magic and miracles
> > are instantiated,
>
> If you are a being that have never observed magical events
> any duplicate of you "will" never have observed any magical
> event either (otherwise you would differ and no longer be
> true duplicates).

That doesn't work the other way round. A duplicate of me up to
16:51 GMT 20 mar 2006 could  suddenly start observing them.

> A true duplicate of you will have had exactly the same
> experiences (magical ones and all others) as you had.
> It might be that your futures will differ but as long
> as your are duplicates you will experience no difference
> and as soon as you will have a different experience you
> will no longer be true duplicates. You will never be
> aware that your previously counterpart has had a
> different experience and is no longer your counterpart

Why not ? I can remember my past selves' experiences, although
they are more different to my present self than some of my other-world
counterparts. You might point out that I can only remember because my
present self has memory-traces that were laid down by my past selves.
But that is to assume that causality works in the common-sense
way, from past to future, and not across worlds. But if every
mathematical
structure is equally real, that constraint should not exist globally.

> (that's contingency and necessity).
>
> > and overlays of normal universes and
> > magical universes are instantiated as well.
>
> *As well*. But it might be that you are just in one which
> *is not* overlayed (that's contingency).

Yes, but how likely is that ? Many-world theories always
come down to an appeal to coincidence.

> What "overlayed"
> might mean is not so clear to me anyway. In case of such
> "overlays" there might be counterparts of you in all of
> them but it might also be that none of them can be aware
> of what the others are aware of.

what I mean by an overlay is just the opposite of that -- something
like a coherent superposition in quantum mechanics or a double-exposure
in photography.

> >> And what about 3. ?
> >
> > if every universe is instantiated, wolrds where everyone is a sorcerer
> > and no-one is a muggle are instantiated.
>
> If you are not a sorcerer, there would be no counterpart
> of you in such worlds (that's contingency and necessity).

If every world is instantiated, there will be worlds where everyone
becomes a sorcerer at the stroke of midnight.


> If you are a sorcerer, it's a mystery to me why you do
> not observe magical events in this universe.
> 
> Georges.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to