On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 11:30:52AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> On 01/10/2007, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It isn't, because Mallah's DA + ASSA predicts a negligible probability
> > of finding oneself in an OM of (say) greater than 120 years old,
> > whereas with t
On 01/10/2007, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It isn't, because Mallah's DA + ASSA predicts a negligible probability
> of finding oneself in an OM of (say) greater than 120 years old,
> whereas with the RSSA one has the QTI predictions, and experiencing
> being 200 years old is not
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 06:56:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Le 27-sept.-07, à 12:43, Russell Standish a écrit :
>
> >
> > It may well be that Darwinism is some marriage of information theory
> > with a multiverse idea, but it is not obvious how this works. I'd take
> > it as a fairly f
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 10:21:41PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> On 30/09/2007, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Incidently, this is the core of Jacques Mallah's argument against
> > QTI. In the end, I discovered that his argument was internally
> > consistent, but reli
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>Is the DA incompatible with QI? According to MWI, your measure in the
>multiverse is constantly dropping with age as versions of you meet
>their demise. According to DA, your present OM is 95% likely to be in
>the first 95% of all OM's available to you. Well, that's w
On 30/09/2007, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 08:17:34PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> > Is the DA incompatible with QI? According to MWI, your measure in the
> > multiverse is constantly dropping with age as versions of you meet
> > their demise.
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 10:49:27AM +0200, Günther Greindl wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I have always found these doomsday arguments rather strange (and the
> mathematics, nice as the equations may be, resting on false premises).
>
> Assuming that OM are distributed unevenly, at the moment you are
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 08:17:34PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> Is the DA incompatible with QI? According to MWI, your measure in the
> multiverse is constantly dropping with age as versions of you meet
> their demise. According to DA, your present OM is 95% likely to be in
> the first 9
On 30/09/2007, Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps it's pretty farfetched, but my motive in thinking along these lines
> is not just that I want to see the doomsday argument wrong when applied to
> the lifetime of our civilization--it's that the doomsday argument can also
> be applie
Hello all,
I have always found these doomsday arguments rather strange (and the
mathematics, nice as the equations may be, resting on false premises).
Assuming that OM are distributed unevenly, at the moment you are
_living_ an OM you can make absolutely no conclusion about where in the
distr
10 matches
Mail list logo
