Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Le Tuesday 29 Août 2006 20:48, 1Z a écrit :
> > Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > > Le Tuesday 29 Août 2006 20:23, 1Z a écrit :
> > > > Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > > > > Le Tuesday 29 Août 2006 17:32, 1Z a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > t be of a large measure... till there is one !
> > > >
> > > > > > We are all individuals, and as such have the same measure..
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you mean by that ? measure is about an OM.
> > > >
> > > > OM's are even more individual than observers.
> > >
> > > So what ? Do you mean every OM has the same measure ?
> > I don't have, or need, a theory of measure.
> > All I am saying is that you cannot claim that The Poor Person
> > has a higher measure than The Rich Person, since inidividuals
> > are individuated by many other factors.
> I didn't claim that, I simply asked more explanation on the following answer
> you give to Stathis:
> Stathis: "For example, the version of me alive
> in the multiverse branches where he has won the lottery every week for a year
> has much lower measure, but he is not proportionately less conscious."
> Peter: "Then you have a WR problem. Barbour introduces the idea
> that low-measure Nows are less conscious in order to
> avoid the WR problem, and with no other motivation."
> As I understand your answer you seem to imply that you agree that the Stathis
> version who has won the lottery every week for a year has much lower measure
> and by quoting Barbour ideas of low measure "now"/OM are less conscious to
> avoid white rabbit problem
No I don't.
I think Stathis's theory is wrong because his
winning the lottery would subjectively be 50:50.
I think Barbour's theory is wrong because it is arbtitrary, and
motivated, to claim that the SWE determines a level of consciousness.
I don't have a theory of measure, or need one, because I go
for the simple soution. WR universes(including those in which
I am a lottery winner) are not subjectively experienced because
they don't exist.
> I understood you said that rich/lucky/put the term
> you like here people are less conscious because they have less measure. But
> now I understand that you don't need a measure theory... So I think disputing
> the idea with another idea with which you do not agree is not fair... Or I
> misunderstood you which is of high probability ;)
> So in fact you are just disputing the measure... still in all you've said I
> don't see where you avoid WR. And also what could mean a primary
> matter/reality in a multiverse... which branch is real ? all ? then where is
> the primary real in all this ?
What is existent is material and vice-versa.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at