# Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

```
Brent Meeker wrote:```
```
> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > Le Jeudi 26 Octobre 2006 18:02, 1Z a écrit :
> >> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> >>>> But c breaks down into:
> >>>> c1)  I experience something coherent that obeys the laws of
> >>>> physics
> >>>> and
> >>>> c2) I experience wild and crazy "harry Potter" stuff.
> >>>>
> >>>> The memory-traces corresponding to c2 are a possible
> >>>> configuration of matter, and so must exist in Platonia. But
> >>>> I only experience c1.
> >>> That means nothing... if you had experienced c2 you would never write
> >>> this...
> >> I could have experienced periods of causal
> >> stability mixed with periods of HP. I could still communicate during
> >> one
> >> of the stable  periods.
> >
> > Well in typical Everett MWI you also could...
> >
> >>> and in physical MW, HP/WR are not ruled out but of very low measure which
> >>> means there is 100% chance that some instance (a tiny tiny number but at
> >>> least one) of you will experience it.
> >> Yes, yes, yes. I am objecting here to everythingism -- mathematical MW
> >> --. not physical MW.
> >
> > But why ? consequences on HP/WR are exactly the same on both flavor ! In any
> > case you have to have a measure function, in both case probability is not
> > about what happens and what doesn't but the relative proportion of "what
> > happens" at the time a choice is made. Even an infinitesimal probability
> > is "instantiated" with 100% chance in MW. Since quantum mechanics does not
> > prevent very weird events from occuring, those events then occur and are as
> > real as this real. The chance to win the lottery is low, yet some wins...
>
> No they are not the same.  QM rules out lots of things - anything that
> doesn't conserve 4-momentum for example.

That is true.

>  Even more to the point QM rules out any future that doesn't evolve from the
> present in accordance with the Hamiltonian of the universe.  It also rules
> out any universe that doesn't conform to quantum mechanics, e.g. a Newtonian
> universe.  The measure of QM universes relative to "mathematically consistent
> universes" is essentially zero.  I put "mathematically consistent universes"
> in scare quotes because I understand what it means for statements and
> propositions to be consistent, but I'm not sure what it means for universes,
> simpliciter, to be consistent.

That is true to. Consistency is a property of (sets of) propositions,
not
of structures. But if you Platonise all of current mathematics, it will
divide into incompatible regions due to incompatible axioms.

> 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