On Feb 5, 10:07 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> On 2/5/2011 12:44 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > 2011/2/5 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com <mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com>>
> > On Feb 5, 1:08 pm, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com
> > <mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > in MWI (and QM) you have WR, so in the multiverse there exists
> > at every
> > > moments splitting or differentiation to random universe, so the
> > question of
> > > what filter it out remains (if MWI is true)...
> > > What I want to say is "the answer is because *you* are in that
> > environment",
> > > you the consciousness, the constraint come from being conscious,
> > and I don't
> > > think you can be conscious where you're not and obviously, for
> > *your* person
> > > to be conscious like you are now you must be here (in this
> > universe ?)
> > > because that's what you observe, your next moment should be a
> > moment where
> > > you are *you* and not someone else,
> > But I am not defined by having exactly the same experience at
> > all times. I am defined by a having a coherent set of memories,
> > but (in a mathematical multiverse) a coherent set of memories up until
> > time T can be stitched
> > onto surreal experiences at time T+1. (which sort of happens
> > in dreams anyway). I can think to myself "Why am I, a person
> > who was born in such-and-such a place and went to school in such-and-
> > such a place
> > and who has every reason to believe there are no talking giant white
> > rabbits now suddenly seeing a WR".
> > You can up until you are not you anymore... ie: until you can say I'm
> > am Peter Jones and you know it.
> > So all *your* experiences are filtered amongs only the Peter Jones
> > experiences.
> > > hence all the someone else moments have
> > > a zero measure to be your next moments, but it is sure that
> > there are hugely
> > > more moments of "not you" than there are moments which are
> > you... so the
> > > filtering is you.
> > In a MMV, there have to be many more me's with incoherent future
> > experiences
> > following on from my current memories, that there are me's with
> > coherent
> > future experiences.
> > That's my point, COMP does not add more white rabbits from this pov.
> > My point is ***when you are asking why am I in this *coherent* moments
> > is because you are effectively in that coherent moments... you
> > would'nt ask that if you were in incoherent moments, so that question
> > filters out any incoherent moments. This restrict the observer class
> > to the only observers able to ask it.***
> He couldn't ask it in a world where the physics was incoherent. But he
> could certainly see apparitions of white rabbits etc as in a dream and
> still ask.
There's no reason the MMV should consist only of entirely coherent
entirely incoherent worlds. It must contain every intermediate
and, more importantly every combination of coherent and incoherent
Just as you can have some digits of pi buried in an otherwise random
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at