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
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
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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to