Wei Dai, [EMAIL PROTECTED], writes:
On Sun, Jul 18, 1999 at 02:35:03PM -0400, Jacques M Mallah wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can then apply your formula, letting x vary over all universes in U,
computing sum over x of P(x)Q(x). I don't fully understand the meaning
of the result, the probability that I feel the way I do, but I wonder
if this would be a valid alternative way of getting to it.
That makes NO sense. If you say all 'universes' exist, that's the
same as saying one big universe exists. And if two copies of the same
computation give you twice the measure when they are in different
'subuniverses', there's no reason that shouldn't be true in general.
Suppose I exist in universe A and I exist in universe B. Then the
contribution these two universes make to the overall probability I feel
the way I do is p(A) + p(B). If universe C is another universe that
happens to be identical to A joined to B somehow, then I exist in C.
The measure of C may or may not be related in a simple way to the
measures of A and B. (I am not making any assumptions here about how
measures are assigned to universes, in particular I am not assuming the
universal distribution.) So p(C) gets added to the mix.
I don't see anything contradictory in this.
I agree with Jacques Mallah here. Even if you could somehow distinguish
between subuniverses (between which measures add up) and regions of
subuniverse, there would be a subuniverse with high measure (e.g. the
counting universe) that contains a copy of every other subuniverse as a
region and it would dominate in your computation, leaving you with
senseless results.
I agree that I exist in the counting universe. The counting universe
would have to have low measure for this model to be true. (Unless I
am actually living in the counting universe.)
I think you agree that you exist in the counting universe. However I
think you give low measure to the places in the counting universe where
you exist because they are so small compared to the universe as a whole.
Is that right?
I think Jacques does not agree that he exists in the counting universe.
He wants to see a process, not a pattern. It is not clear whether
a process can be fully represented as a pattern.
Hal