On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Kelly <harmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't say that they are rare, I say they don't make any sense.  A
> big difference.
> I say that every possible event is perceived to happen, and so nothing
> is more or less rare than anything else.  There are only things that
> are rare in your experience.  They are not rare in an absolute sense.
> Why do I say this?  Because I think that platonism is the best
> explanation for conscious experience, and the above view is (I think)
> the logical conclusion of that platonic view of reality.

I am not sure that the measure problem can be so easily
abandoned/ignored.  Assuming every Observer Moment had has an equal
measure, then the random/white-noise filled OMs should vastly
outnumber the ordered and sensible OMs.  Though I ever only have one
OM to go by, the fact I was able to maintain a
non-random/non-white-noise filled OMs long enough to compose this post
should serve as some level of evidence that all OMs are not weighted

Bruno has suggested that computationalism is a candidate for answering
the measure problem in a testable way.  However there may be other
ways to answer it by considering platonic objects, for example
counting the umber of paths to a state, that is how often it reappears
as a substructure of other platonic objects, etc.  Whether or not this
is testable is another question, but whether the ultimate explanation
of consciousness is computation or information, I feel that measure is


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

Reply via email to