Re: computationalism and supervenience

From: Quentin Anciaux <allcolor.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:04:42 +0200

Le Tuesday 29 Août 2006 20:48, 1Z a écrit :
> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > Le Tuesday 29 Août 2006 20:23, 1Z a écrit :
> > > Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > > > Le Tuesday 29 Août 2006 17:32, 1Z a écrit :
> > >
> > > t be of a large measure... till there is one !
> > >
> > > > > We are all individuals, and as such have the same measure..
> > > >
> > > > What do you mean by that ? measure is about an OM.
> > >
> > > OM's are even more individual than observers.
> >
> > So what ? Do you mean every OM has the same measure ?
>
> I don't have, or need, a theory of measure.
>
> All I am saying is that you cannot claim that The Poor Person
> has a higher measure than The Rich Person, since inidividuals
> are individuated by many other factors.

I didn't claim that, I simply asked more explanation on the following answer
you give to Stathis:

Stathis: "For example, the version of me alive
in the multiverse branches where he has won the lottery every week for a year
has much lower measure, but he is not proportionately less conscious."

Peter: "Then you have a WR problem. Barbour introduces the idea
that low-measure Nows are less conscious in order to
avoid the WR problem, and with no other motivation."

As I understand your answer you seem to imply that you agree that the Stathis
version who has won the lottery every week for a year has much lower measure
and by quoting Barbour ideas of low measure "now"/OM are less conscious to
avoid white rabbit problem I understood you said that rich/lucky/put the term
you like here people are less conscious because they have less measure. But
now I understand that you don't need a measure theory... So I think disputing
the idea with another idea with which you do not agree is not fair... Or I
misunderstood you which is of high probability ;)

So in fact you are just disputing the measure... still in all you've said I
don't see where you avoid WR. And also what could mean a primary
matter/reality in a multiverse... which branch is real ? all ? then where is
the primary real in all this ?


Quentin

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Aug 29 2006 - 15:07:22 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST