On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 09:52:25PM -0500, meekerdb wrote: > >Standish, and weighted by the universal prior, giving more weight to > >being a baby than an adult. > Is that assuming that QM uncertainty increases to the future but not > the past:? > > Brent
In QM, the state evolves unitarily, which conserves total probability. However, not all observations are compatible with being an OM of the person of interest (ie the observer dies in some branches). Consequently, the total measure of observer moments must diminish as a function of OM age, roughly given by the observed 3rd person mortality curve. After 70-80 years, the total measure diminishes rapidly, but not to zero (assuming no cul-de-sac). Hence my statement - the measure must be biased towards being a baby. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpco...@hpcoders.com.au Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.
