On 02 Jun 2009, at 18:46, Kelly Harmon wrote:

>> First, in the multiplication experience, the question of your choice
>> is not addressed, nor needed.
>> The question is really: what will happen to you. You give the right
>> answer above.
> You're saying that there are no low probability worlds?  Or only that
> they're outnumbered by the high probability worlds?

The last. Low probability world exists but not only it is rare to  
access them, but it super-rare to remain in them, well, if comp  

> I guess I'm not clear on what you're getting at with this pixel
> thought-experiment.

The UD is the many-world, or many-histories. The 2^big movies  
multiplication is a tiny trivial part of the UD, and being  
immaterialist you should understand that we are doing all the time  
this "thought" experiment. If we don't succeed in justifying why  
things look normal, comp has to be abandoned. We have to explain why  
the computational histories win when the UD plays the trick of  
generating a continuum of non computational histories. The  
computational histories which will "win" are those who entangled with  
the non computational histories so as to make normality inherited by  
the computational one. Somehow.

>> Have you understand UDA1-6?, because I think most get those steps. I
>> will soon explain in all details UDA-7, which is not entirely  
>> obvious.
>> If you take your own philosophy seriously, you don't need UDA8. But  
>> it
>> can be useful to convince others, of the necessity of that
>> "philosophy", once we bet on the comp hyp.
> I think I have a good grasp of 1 through 6.

Cool, I am just explaining UDA-7, in all details, from scratch.



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