Hi Quentin,

    I seem to need to read up on the prior discussion! I’ll look for the wiki 



From: Quentin Anciaux 
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 5:52 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis

2011/5/6 Stephen Paul King <stephe...@charter.net>

      My physical body has myopia and certain other physical characteristics 
that are consistent with some finite set of possible parents. My daughter has 
similar physical characteristics, as well as artistic ability that are similar 
to that of my lovely and talented wife. My point is that where our 
consciousness finds itself might have some thing to do with the properties of 
one’s ancestors and not because of some abstract statistical measure. Unless we 
accept some ambiguous form of reincarnation of souls, which is dualist in the 
Cartesian sense, then there is a strong physical reason why the body that my 
consciousness experiences is what it is. It is this kind of hereditary variable 
that seems to be neglected in the DA. My 1p seems to be constrained by physical 
properties in a way that does not allow me to claim that the physical world is, 
at best, an epiphenomena of numbers. 
      My parents lived in a certain area when this body that I associate with 
was born, their respective parents lived in Texas and Main, etc. This location, 
while subject to indeterminacy via Bruno’s teleportation/copying argument, does 
seem to at least partially address the question of “why do I find myself in a 
particular place, time, body, etc.?” So maybe my difficulty is in understanding 
the motivation of the DA and this in turn makes me less than sanguine about the 
“Ants are not conscious” argument. I worry that we are misapplying our 
knowledge of the mathematics of statistics to morph the Hard Problem into a 
problem of measure.
      I think that the ‘Surprise 20 Questions’ idea that John Wheeler 
considered in his famous ‘It from Bit’ paper might be more appropriate. Any OM 
that is a possible continuance of another OM must not contain information that 
is inconsistent with any previous OM in its sequence, up to some constant that 
relates to the upper bound on the resolving power of a typical measurement. We 
additionally need to consider that possible interactions between physical 
systems would also constrain the information in the OMs such that no OM in a 
sequence could contain information that contradicts that of another that is 
related to some separate but co-existing system.
      Instead of thinking of the content of OMs in terms of some statistical 
measure, I think that it might be a better idea to consider exactly how OM are 
sequenced together such that the White Rabbit problem is minimized. 

Isn't it exactly the difference between ASSA and RSSA ?


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