Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter Jones writes:
...
>>> If you died today and just by accident a possible next
>>> moment of consciousness was generated by a computer a trillion years in the
>>> future, then ipso facto you would find yourself a trillion years in the future.
>> That's the whole problem. I could just as easily find myself in an HP
>> universe. But I never do.
>
> Not "just as easily". If you are destructively scanned and a moment from now 2 copies
> of you are created in Moscow and 1 copy created in Washington, you have a 2/3 chance
> of finding yourself in Moscow and a 1/3 chance of finding yourself in Washington. It is a
> real problem to explain why the HP universes are less likely to be experienced than the
> orderly ones (see chapter 4.2 of Russell Standish' book for a summary of some of the
> debates on this issue), but it is not any more of a problem for a mathematical as opposed
> to a physical multiverse.
I'm not sure what a mathematical MV is: if you mean the Tegmark idea of the set of all mathematically consistent universes then I think you're wrong. There is no measure defined over that set (and I doubt it's possible to define one). But the physical universe obeys the laws of QM and it appears that eigenselection, as proposed by Zeh, Joos, and others, may provide a natural measure favoring order.
Brent Meeker
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Wed Oct 25 2006 - 02:13:15 PDT