Re: computationalism and supervenience

From: Quentin Anciaux <>
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 ?


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
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