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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
