On 3/31/2011 10:08 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
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).

Couldn't the person have been born at different times too? QM Hamiltonians are time symmetric. If you try to infer the past you also have unitary evolution - just in the other direction. So I'm wondering where the arrow of time comes from in this view?

Brent

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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3540 - Release Date: 03/30/11 
09:54:00


--
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