On 6/24/2019 1:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


Le lun. 24 juin 2019 à 22:00, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :



    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.



You're not talking about mwi but a theory where moments exist by themselves and are selected randomly... That's nonsense.

Can you explain why it's nonsense.  Can you explain why I must find myself on the first mile of my journey?

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/9ae5d58d-24e7-d941-908c-2cd4bb2ef1ee%40verizon.net.

Reply via email to