Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Measure, Doomsday argument
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Measure, Doomsday argument
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type application/pgp-signature. Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic
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 we
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
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.
So as
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 complex
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
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 probabilities
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 assume
- Original Message -
From: Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
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 conditionnal
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
calculate
Saibal Mitra wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
