2009/2/11 Jack Mallah <jackmal...@yahoo.com>
> --- On Wed, 2/11/09, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2009/2/11 Jack Mallah <jackmal...@yahoo.com>
> > > And if your measure were to drop off dramatically overnight, it is
> equivalent to saying that many _more people_ woke up in your bed today as
> compared to the number of people who will wake up in your bed tommorrow.
> > >
> > > Which is equivalent to saying that, for all practical purposes, you
> will probably die overnight. And that is the point.
> > >
> > I don't think so, the point is that there is still someone who will wake
> up in the bed tomorrow... as long as the measure is not null this is true,
> and that's what count for the argument to be valid.
> There are some people who will, but relatively few. That is what counts
> for QS to be invalid.
Well no.. because if the measure is never null there always exists a
successor moment however small is measure is, it exists and that's all what
is needed. (from a first person perspective, and that's what the argument is
> > So what you are saying is that at some point the measure fall to be
> strictly null... and that needs an argument from your part.
> No, I never suggested it is zero. It doesn't have to be.
So there exists a successor.
> > Also you did not answer the question about the realness feeling of
> observer B... he has twice less measure according to you, does it feel less
> alive/real/conscious ?
> I answered that previously. Measure affects the commonness of an
> observation, not what it feels like.
>From a 1st perspective commonness is useless in the argument. The important
is what it feels like for the experimenter.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
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