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 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to