On 6/24/2019 12:56 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


Le lun. 24 juin 2019 à 20:52, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :



    On 6/24/2019 11:08 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


    Le lun. 24 juin 2019 à 19:30, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
    <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :



        On 6/24/2019 2:29 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


        Le lun. 24 juin 2019 à 11:18, Bruno Marchal
        <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :


            On 24 Jun 2019, at 05:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything
            List <[email protected]
            <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



            On 6/23/2019 5:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

            On 21 Jun 2019, at 21:49, 'Brent Meeker' via
            Everything List <[email protected]
            <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



            On 6/21/2019 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

            On 21 Jun 2019, at 09:04, Bruce Kellett
            <[email protected]
            <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

            On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:26 PM 'Brent Meeker' via
            Everything List <[email protected]
            <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:


                To disconfirm MWI you'd have to observe
                statistics far from the expected value,


            To make my point more strongly, that is the wrong
            way round. Observation of statistics far from the
            expected value is what would be required to confirm
            MWI.

            I don’t see this at all.



            The fact that we don't observe such results is the
            strongest possible case against MWI!

            ?

            The probability to see a deviation is the same in
            both Everett, and Copenhagen. The deviation expected
            is the same, so if there is a deviation, it can
            hardly be used to claim one theory is more correct
            than the other.

            But as Bruce points out Tegmark's machine gun
            experiment is effectively being carried out by each
            of us.

            That is quantum immortality. On this list I have
            defend this, but Tegmark rejected it, and claimed that
            the survival to quantum suicide does not entail
            quantum immortality. He might have changed his mind
            since, perhaps.



            So if each of us lives on a million years in some
            branch of the MW, then each of us will experience
            99.9% of our life as a very old person among people
            younger than 100yrs.

            Unless there are intimidate realities in between Earth
            and Heaven.

            It would still imply that each person would experience
            only a small part of their existence surrounded by
            other persons whose age differed by less that 120yr
            from their own.  And so each of us should be surprised
            that we find ourself in exactly that kind of world.


            Using some anthropoid argument, but like fine tuning, I
            tend to agree with Vic that is is not really convincing,
            and should be handled mathematically. Only progress in
            the mathematical theology will show if this threat
            Mechanism or not.

            Bruno


        The thing is we should first be born before being 1000000
        years... so it seems not surprising finding yourself
        "young", that you are with other "young" people.

        That's seems to implicitly assume that everybody starts at
        the same time, so they are young together and then old
        together (in the branches they survive).  I see no
        justification for conditioning on being young, since the
        point of the argument is that given quantum immortality the
        time you are young is of measure zero.

        Brent


    You have to be young first, your actual moment is not randomly
    sampled from all possible you moments, it is ordered. As very old
    is very unlikely, when in your first years, you should not find
    yourself around very old people.

    What is "ordered"?  A sample is just a sample, it has no order. 
    If quantum immortality is true, then you must exist at all ages. 
    And a sample from that distribution is unlikely to find you
    young.  Sure, if you condition on being young, then you will see
    young people around you...because whether you are young or not you
    will see young people around you.  The problem is that YOU are
    most likely to be old.


The thing is you had to be young first. You're talking with ASSA in mind. ASSA is nonsense.

So if I go on a thousand mile journey I'm most likely to find myself within a mile of my starting point.  I think THAT's nonsense.

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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7a863fb3-f5c8-608f-41ca-8386ba9d4168%40verizon.net.

Reply via email to