Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
>>> If you died today and just by accident a possible next
>>> moment of consciousness was generated by a computer a trillion years in the
>>> future, then ipso facto you would find yourself a trillion years in the 
>>> future.
>> That's the whole problem. I could just as easily find myself in an HP
>> universe. But I never do.
> Not "just as easily". If you are destructively scanned and a moment from now 
> 2 copies 
> of you are created in Moscow and 1 copy created in Washington, you have a 2/3 
> chance 
> of finding yourself in Moscow and a 1/3 chance of finding yourself in 
> Washington. It is a 
> real problem to explain why the HP universes are less likely to be 
> experienced than the 
> orderly ones (see chapter 4.2 of Russell Standish' book for a summary of some 
> of the 
> debates on this issue), but it is not any more of a problem for a 
> mathematical as opposed 
> to a physical multiverse.

I'm not sure what a mathematical MV is: if you mean the Tegmark idea of the set 
of all mathematically consistent universes then I think you're wrong.  There is 
no measure defined over that set (and I doubt it's possible to define one).  
But the physical universe obeys the laws of QM and it appears that 
eigenselection, as proposed by Zeh, Joos, and others, may provide a natural 
measure favoring order.

Brent Meeker


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to