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 [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
