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.

##
Advertising

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