On 12 Feb 2009, at 02:59, Jack Mallah wrote:
> > Hi George. The everything list feels just like old times, no? I am afraid we are just a bit bactracking 10 years ago. No problem. After all, concerning theology, I am asking people to backtrack 1500 years ago (1480 to be precise). > Which is nice in a way but has a big drawback - I can only take so > much of arguing the same old things, and being outnumbered. And > that limit is approaching fast again. At least I think your point > here is new to the list. > > --- On Wed, 2/11/09, George Levy <[email protected]> wrote: >> One could argue that measure actually increases continuously and >> corresponds to the increase in entropy occurring in everyday life. >> So even if you are 90 or 100 years old you could still experience >> an increase in measure. > > I guess you are basing that on some kind of branch-counting idea. > > If that were the case, the Born Rule would fail. Perhaps the > probability rule would be more like proportionality to norm^2 > exp(entropy) instead of just norm^2. If that was it, then for > example unstable nuclei would be observed to decay a lot faster than > the Born Rule predicts. > > Conventional half life calculations are accurate. So either entropy > would not be a factor, or the MWI is experimentally disproven > already. Well, if it is a weak enough function of entropy then > maybe it hasn't been disproven, but inclusion of free parameters > like that which can always be made small enough goes against Occam's > Razor. Otherwise there'd be no end of possible correction factors. > > At least your idea was testable, with none of the meaningless "first > person" sloganeering. Ideas like that, keep em' coming! So you stop at step two of the UDA? What is wrong with the definition of first and third person views notion? I gave a complete third person definition of both notions. (see the SANE 2004 paper). Or look at the arithmetical definition (the Theaetetic one); > > >> In any case, measure is measured over a continuum and its value is >> infinite to begin with. So whether it increases or decreases may be >> a moot point. > > It's not moot. Just take density ratios. The size of the universe > may be infinite, but that didn't stop Hubble from saying it's > getting bigger. > >> As I said, the increase or decrease in measure is at the crux of >> this problem. Your paper really did not illuminate the issue in a >> satisfactory manner. > > It could no doubt use some tweaking, which is why I'm on the list > now. I know I'm not always a good communicator. What should be > clarified or added to it? You say: "no randomness involved" but you seem to accept probabilities. Do I just miss something here? You seem not taking the 1 pov / 3 pov distinction seriously into account. What does mean "questioning immortality" then? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
