On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 06 May 2010, at 04:24, Rex Allen wrote:
>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Rex Allen <rexallen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> We haven't changed the relative number of Rexs and not-Rexs, we've
>>> just labeled them with an extra property and then rearranged them
>>> according to that additional property. They retain their original
>>> properties though.
>>> So, we still have a countable infinity of Rexs, and a countable
>>> infinity of not-Rexs. Who can be placed into one-to-one
>>> SO...what difference does the "measure" make when deciding, as Carroll
>>> put it, "which infinity wins"?
>> To me this sounds very similar to the Tristram Shandy Paradox. Yes? No?
> Nice page. I think people should find there enough to conclude that
> cardinality if on no help in probability measure problems.
What I get out of it is that measure is irrelevant to ontological
questions involving infinity.
Even though events happen more frequently that completed
autobiographical entries, ultimately every event has it's associated
At least according to Bertrand Russell.
Translating back to Normal brains, Boltzmann brains, and eternal
recurrence - ultimately every normal brain can be paired with a
Boltzmann brain, so anthropic reasoning is irrelevant in that case.
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