2009/2/11 Jack Mallah <jackmal...@yahoo.com>

>
> --- On Wed, 2/11/09, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > From a 1st perspective commonness is useless in the argument. The
> important is what it feels like for the experimenter.
>
> You seem to be saying that commonness of an experience has no effect on,
> what for practical purposes, is whether people should expect to experience
> it.  That is a contradiction in terms.  It is false by definition.  If an
> "uncommon" experience gets experienced just as often as a "common"
> experience, then by definition they are equally common and have equal
> measure.
>
>
That's not what I said. I said however uncommon an experience is, if it
exists... it exists by definition, if mwi is true, and measure is never
strictly null for any particular moment to have a successor then any moment
has a successor hence there exists a me moment of 1000 years old and it is
garanteed to be lived by definition.

What you're saying is uncommon moment are *never* experienced (means their
measure is strictly null), for the QI argument to hold it is suffisant to
have at least *one* next moment for every moment.

Quentin


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>


-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to