Re: children and measure

Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 2009/2/11 Jesse Mazer > > > > > Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > Indeed there seems to be a conflict between MWI of QM and the > feeling of > > consciousness. QM evolves unitarily to preserve total > probabilit

Re: children and measure

Jesse Mazer wrote: > > Brent Meeker wrote: >> Indeed there seems to be a conflict between MWI of QM and the feeling of >> consciousness. QM evolves unitarily to preserve total probability, which >> implies that the splitting into different quasi-classical subspaces reduces >> the >> measure of e

RE: children and measure

> 2009/2/11 Quentin Anciaux> > > > Because the point is to know from a 1st person perspective that it exists a > "next subjective moment"... if there is, QI holds. Even if in the majority of > "universes" I'm dead... from 1st perspective I cannot "be dead" hence the > only moments that count

Re: children and measure

2009/2/11 Jesse Mazer > > > Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > Indeed there seems to be a conflict between MWI of QM and the feeling of > > consciousness. QM evolves unitarily to preserve total probability, which > > implies that the splitting into different quasi-classical subspaces > reduces the > > m

Re: children and measure

Jack Mallah wrote: > --- On Wed, 2/11/09, Brent Meeker wrote: >> Indeed there seems to be a conflict between MWI of QM and the feeling of >> consciousness. QM evolves unitarily to preserve total probability, which >> implies that the splitting into different quasi-classical subspaces reduces >>

Re: children and measure

2009/2/11 Quentin Anciaux > > > 2009/2/11 Jesse Mazer > >> >> >> Brent Meeker wrote: >> > >> > Indeed there seems to be a conflict between MWI of QM and the feeling of >> > consciousness. QM evolves unitarily to preserve total probability, which >> > implies that the splitting into different qua

RE: children and measure

Brent Meeker wrote: > > Indeed there seems to be a conflict between MWI of QM and the feeling of > consciousness. QM evolves unitarily to preserve total probability, which > implies that the splitting into different quasi-classical subspaces reduces > the > measure of each subspace. But there's

Re: children and measure

--- On Wed, 2/11/09, Brent Meeker wrote: > Indeed there seems to be a conflict between MWI of QM and the feeling of > consciousness. QM evolves unitarily to preserve total probability, which > implies that the splitting into different quasi-classical subspaces reduces > the measure of each s

Re: children and measure

Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 2009/2/11 Jack Mallah mailto:jackmal...@yahoo.com>> > > > --- On Mon, 2/9/09, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > > Also I still don't understand how I could be 30 years old and not > 4, there are a lot more OM of 4 than 30... it

Re: children and measure

--- On Wed, 2/11/09, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > I don't get it. Why should the "measure" suddenly decrease at 80 (or 100) > years old ? Why not 30 ? Why not 4 ? Heart disease. Cancer. Stroke. Degradation of various organs leading to death. Such ailments are known to strike older people more

Re: children and measure

2009/2/11 Jack Mallah > > --- On Mon, 2/9/09, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Also I still don't understand how I could be 30 years old and not 4, > there are a lot more OM of 4 than 30... it is the argument you use for 1000 > years old, I don't see why it can hold for 30 ? > > Quentin, why would the

Re: children and measure

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 06:43:11PM -0800, Jack Mallah wrote: > > --- On Mon, 2/9/09, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Also I still don't understand how I could be 30 years old and not 4, there > > are a lot more OM of 4 than 30... it is the argument you use for 1000 years > > old, I don't see why it

re: children and measure

--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Also I still don't understand how I could be 30 years old and not 4, there > are a lot more OM of 4 than 30... it is the argument you use for 1000 years > old, I don't see why it can hold for 30 ? Quentin, why would the measure of 4 year olds be "a