Marc Geddes writes:
> 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
> 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
Do you believe there is a difference between the experience of a being
living in a model block universe, such as having the observer moments
of its life running simultaneously on different machines or as separate
processes run in parallel on the one machine, and the experience of a
being running in a linear simulation as per the traditional view of time?
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
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