--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also I still don't understand how I could be 30 years old and not 4, there 
> are a lot more OM of 4 than 30... it is the argument you use for 1000 years 
> old, I don't see why it can hold for 30 ?

Quentin, why would the measure of 4 year olds be "a lot more" than the measure 
of 30 year olds?  I have already explained that the effect of differentiation 
(eg by learning) is exactly balanced by the increased number of versions to sum 
over (the N/N explanation) and the effect of child mortality is small.

Is there some third factor that you think comes into play?  Can you estimate 
quantitatively what you think the measure ratio would be?

> Also even if absolute measure had sense, do you mean that the measure of a 
> 1000 years old OM is strictly zero (not infinitesimal, simply and strictly 
> null)?

No, it is not zero, but it is extremely small.  I have never suggested that 
there is no long time tail in the measure distribution that extends to infinite 
time.  Of course there is.  Any MWIer knows that.  But it is negligable.  You 
will never experience it, or depending on definitions, at least not in any 
significant measure.  The general argument against immortality proves that.  It 
is no more significant then any other very-small-measure set of observations, 
such as the ones in which you are king of the demons.  You might as well forget 
about it.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to