2009/2/11 Jack Mallah <[email protected]> > > --- On Wed, 2/11/09, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
