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 un-phsycially 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
