Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 3/16/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > I think it's more like asking why are we aware of 17 and > other small > > numbers but no integers greater that say 10^10^20 - i.e. > almost all > > of them. A theory that just says "all integers exist" > doesn't help > > answer that. But if the integers are something we "make up" > (or are > > hardwired by evolution) then it makes sense that we are only > > acquainted with small ones. > > > > > > OK, but there are other questions that defy such an explanation. > Suppose > > the universe were infinite, as per Tegmark Level 1, and contained an > > infinite number of observers. Wouldn't that make your measure > > effectively zero? And yet here you are. > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > Another observation refuting Tegmark! :-) > > Seriously, even in the finite universe we observe my probability is > almost zero. Almost everything and and everyone is improbable, just > like my winning the lottery when I buy one [in] a million tickets is > improbable - but someone has to win. So it's a question of relative > measure. Each integer has zero measure in the set of all integers - > yet we are acquainted with some and not others. So why is the > "acquaintance measure" of small integers so much greater than that > of integers greater than 10^10^20 ( i.e. almost all of them). What > picks out the small integers? > > > There are factors creating a local measure, even if the Plenitude is > infinite and measureless. Although the chance that you will be you is > zero or almost zero if you consider the Plenitude as God's big lucky > dip, you have to be someone given that we are talking about observers, > and once you are that fantastically improbable person,
In other words, "That's just the way it is.", which comports with my complaint that such theories are empty. Brent Meeker >it becomes a > certainty that you will remain him for as long as there are future > versions of him extant anywhere at all. Thus, the first person > perspective, necessarily from within the plenitude, makes a global > impossibility a local certainty. > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
