On 11 August 2017 at 10:11, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> 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. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
