On 10/19/2013 1:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:


    On 19 Oct 2013, at 07:52, meekerdb wrote:

    On 10/18/2013 9:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

    On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:34, meekerdb wrote:

    On 10/18/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



    On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
    <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

        On 10/18/2013 12:18 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
        Note: I do believe we experience all possible outcomes, and you can even
        say in truth there is only one "I"

        In your theory a person is a chain of experiences, so different chain =>
        different person.  It seems more accurate to say there is no "I".


    But the chain is immortal and cyclic,

    Why do you assume it's cyclic?  Where was it before life evolved?

    convoluted with periods of amnesia,

    Amnesia = gap in the chain.

    branching, etc. Any state eventually leads to every other state.

    Sounds like wishful thinking.

    Why? It entails that there is only one person,

    Not only that, it entails that the one person lives each life over and over.

    Like in Gödel rotative universe.

    But time is an indexical, it makes no sense to ascribe an absolute time to 
the
    living of an experience. In the UD all experiences are "lived" an infinity 
of times,
    but the 1p makes it unique, and the infinity will play a role only in the 
statistics
    on the relative futures.

    We belong all the "time" to finite computations, cyclic computations, and 
infinite
    non cyclic computations.
    At first sight, only those last one can change the relative measure on the
    consistent extensions, so we can say that finite and cyclic computations 
have a
    measure zero for the 1_p.



Why should cyclic computations not have as much weight towards some particular state as an infinite computation that is not cyclic? Is it because there are an infinite number of these non-cyclic computations all proceeding through that state an an infinite number of times (and hence a larger infinity)?

For one thing, in what sense can a computation be said to repeat? There may be a cyclic computation, but there's no external measure of time or progression corresponding to "going around the cycle". It's static mathematical object.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to