Le lun. 24 juin 2019 à 22:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> a écrit :
> > > 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]> 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]> 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]> a écrit : >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/24/2019 2:29 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le lun. 24 juin 2019 à 11:18, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> a >>>> écrit : >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 24 Jun 2019, at 05:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>>>> [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]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 6/21/2019 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 21 Jun 2019, at 09:04, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:26 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>>>> [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? > I don't know for you but when I make a thousand mile journey, i'm living every miles of it, not a random last portion of it, and it starts with the first mile. > > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9ae5d58d-24e7-d941-908c-2cd4bb2ef1ee%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CAMW2kApf%3DR%3DQounwaNA-Jxi4wXpKM%2BAPbukasp_zyOEjVRST%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.
