On Jan 14, 9:51 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/1/14 Nick Prince <m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk>:
> >>The ASSA proponents say that even though there are
> >>thousand year old versions of you in the multiverse they are of very
> >>low measure and you are therefore very unlikely to find yourself one
> >>of them.
> > How do they know this though? If the probability distribution was
> > uniform then versions of me at any age would be just as probable.
> > This is what I don’t get because they must be assuming there is some
> > (unknown) probability distribution which accounts for the fact that
> > thousand year old people are extremely unlikely. What they must be
> > assuming is that each OM arises in a non uniform manner. I presume
> > they think this because the laws of physics underpins the biochemical
> > effects which make us age and this must be represented in the
> > distribution (somehow). So there is an implicit assumption about the
> > probability distribution on OM’s lurking around. So why not accept
> > that the distribution is based on the Born rule which means RSSA?
> The probability distribution is not uniform since as you get older
> more and more versions of you die, so that you take up an
> ever-narrower slice of the multiverse.
> Stathis Papaioannou- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
1. Do you think dementia a cul de sac branch then (MWI or single
2 Why is there any distinction between the RSSA and the ASSA. Can we
just not say that the RSSA is the (apparent) consequences of some non
uniform distribution over OM's accessed under the ASSA?
3 Do you think this non uniform distribution is due to the laws of
phyisics or is physics the consequence of the distribution?
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
For more options, visit this group at