---
> From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Jonathan Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Measure, Doomsday argument
>
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to m
o speak into
John M
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jonathan Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Measure, Doomsday argument
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:14:18PM -0700, Jonathan Colvin wrote:
> Russell Standish wrote:
>
> >This argument is a variation of the argument for why we find
> >so many observers in our world, rather than being alone in the
> >universe, and is similar to why we expect the universe to be
> >so bi
Russell Standish wrote:
>This argument is a variation of the argument for why we find
>so many observers in our world, rather than being alone in the
>universe, and is similar to why we expect the universe to be
>so big and old.
>
>Of course this argument contains a whole raft of ill-formed
>a
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 06:13:53PM -0700, "Hal Finney" wrote:
> Quentin Anciaux writes:
> > Why aren't we blind ? :-)
> >
> > If the "measure" of an OM come from the information complexity of it, it
> > seems
> > that an OM of a blind person need less information content because there is
> > no
Quentin Anciaux writes:
> Why aren't we blind ? :-)
>
> If the "measure" of an OM come from the information complexity of it, it
> seems
> that an OM of a blind person need less information content because there is
> no complex description of the outside world available to the blind observer.
>
The answer is probably something along the lines of:
OM with lots of sighted observers (as well as the odd blind one) will
have lower complexity than OMs containing only blind observers (since
the latter do not seem all that probable from an evolutionary point of
view).
Given there are
Le Lundi 20 Juin 2005 23:12, "Hal Finney" a écrit :
>
> The empirical question presents itself like this. Very simple universes
> (such as empty universes, or ones made up of simple repeating patterns)
> would have no life at all. Perhaps sufficiently complex ones would be
> full of life. So as
Saibal Mitra wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Quentin Anciaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 11:37 PM
Subject: Measure, Doomsday argument
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have some questions about measure...
>
> As I understand the
From: Quentin Anciaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Measure, Doomsday argument
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:37:45 +0200
Hi everyone,
I have some questions about measure...
As I understand the DA, it is based on conditionnal probabilities. To
somehow
calcula
- Original Message -
From: "Quentin Anciaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 11:37 PM
Subject: Measure, Doomsday argument
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have some questions about measure...
>
> As I understand the DA, it is based on conditi
Quentin Anciaux writes:
> It has been said on this list, to justify we are living in "this" reality and
> not in an Harry Potter like world that somehow "our" reality is simpler, has
> higher measure than Whitte rabbit universe. But if I correlate this
> assumption with the DA, I also should ass
Hi everyone,
I have some questions about measure...
As I understand the DA, it is based on conditionnal probabilities. To somehow
calculate the "chance" on doom soon or doom late. An observer should reason
as if he is a random observer from the "class" of observer.
The conditionnal probabiliti
13 matches
Mail list logo