On 11 August 2017 at 10:11, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> On 11/08/2017 9:45 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> "What will I see tomorrow?" is meaningful and does not contain any false
>> propositions. Humans who are fully aware that there will be multiple copies
>> understand the question and can use it consistently, and as I have tried to
>> demonstrate even animals have an instinctive understanding of it.
>> Probabilities can be consistently calculated using the assumption that I
>> will experience being one and only one of the multiple future copies, and
>> these probabilities can be used to plan for the future and to run
>> successful business ventures. If you still insist it is gibberish that
>> calls into question your usage of the word "gibberish ".
> Not everyone will be successful in this scenario. No matter how mane
> duplications cycles are gone through, there will always be one individual
> at the end who has not received any reward at all (he has never seen
> Washington :-)). This is the problem of "monster sequences" that is so
> troublesome for understanding probability in Everett QM.
It's the same with any consideration of probability. Someone wins the
lottery; someone even wins the lottery twice.
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.