Le mar. 25 juin 2019 à 08:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> a écrit :
> > > On 6/24/2019 9:58 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 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. > > > But why does that change the probability of me being on mile 50 or mile > 900? You seem to be claiming that because they are ordered I can never be > on the last part... > Not that's your point, you are claiming I should find myself in the last part... but any precise part has measure 0... and life *is not* a sequence picked up at random... not mine and if your theory is that it is, then it fails. I always find myself in the present and nowhere else, and this present follow a previous moment logically connected, I don't fall into existence in the last part of my life, so there is absolutely *no wonder* as to why I experience being young, it's mandatory before being old. Quentin > which of course then means I couldn't be on the next to last part either. > In fact I apparently couldn't even be on any part, because that would be > later than some earlier part. > > > 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/1c72fa29-8599-6165-30bf-ed4cb3e2636b%40verizon.net > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c72fa29-8599-6165-30bf-ed4cb3e2636b%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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/CAMW2kAqDtyWSu-XTT4%2Bqwc2BG%2BFfzy-7oLEuya9G9Wrb_MmSJw%40mail.gmail.com.
