Russell Standish wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 08:40:40AM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > All the anthropic reasoning stuff is bunk in my opinion. It's based on > > the faulty idea that one can reason about consciousness by equating > > observer moments with parts of the block universe. But as I suggest > > above, you can't do this. > > > > I'm not entirely sure what to make of what you say here, except that > it seems to be a criticism of the ASSA (that each observer moment is > selected independently of any other from an absolute measure distribution). > > >
The implicit assumption in anthropic reasoning is that the observer moments are in some sense *already there* (i.e the future and past are already layed down in the block universe). This is what I waas disputing. If the observer moments do *not* in fact pre-exist in a fully formed or consistent fashion, then you cannot apply standard statistical reasoning about the chances of an 'observer moment' being instantiated. Re-read what I said. I was disputing the block universe as reagrds observer moments. If Observer moments don't actually exist until we come to them via the river of time, then they cannot be reasoned about using standard statistical methods to talk about pre-existing frequencies. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
