On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/2/5 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 1:08 pm, Quentin Anciaux <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.

When I have 99% coherent memories and 1%  surreal memories, I can say
it..
when it is 98%/2% I can say it...it would be convenient for you  if I
lost all sense of
self the very instant anything weird happened, but we carry a lot of
baggage with us
and it takes a lot to erase 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.

I dare say. But the Mathematical Multiverses do add a lot more WRs
than
physical multiverses.

> 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,


If I was in some little personal bubble of coherency I could still
ask why everything else is so incoherent -- and that is just one
of many stitchings of order to disorder that exist in the MMV

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to