Brent Meeker wrote:
> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > Le Jeudi 26 Octobre 2006 18:02, 1Z a écrit :
> >> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> >>>> But c breaks down into:
> >>>> c1) I experience something coherent that obeys the laws of
> >>>> physics
> >>>> and
> >>>> c2) I experience wild and crazy "harry Potter" stuff.
> >>>>
> >>>> The memory-traces corresponding to c2 are a possible
> >>>> configuration of matter, and so must exist in Platonia. But
> >>>> I only experience c1.
> >>> That means nothing... if you had experienced c2 you would never write
> >>> this...
> >> I could have experienced periods of causal
> >> stability mixed with periods of HP. I could still communicate during
> >> one
> >> of the stable periods.
> >
> > Well in typical Everett MWI you also could...
> >
> >>> and in physical MW, HP/WR are not ruled out but of very low measure which
> >>> means there is 100% chance that some instance (a tiny tiny number but at
> >>> least one) of you will experience it.
> >> Yes, yes, yes. I am objecting here to everythingism -- mathematical MW
> >> --. not physical MW.
> >
> > But why ? consequences on HP/WR are exactly the same on both flavor ! In any
> > case you have to have a measure function, in both case probability is not
> > about what happens and what doesn't but the relative proportion of "what
> > happens" at the time a choice is made. Even an infinitesimal probability
> > is "instantiated" with 100% chance in MW. Since quantum mechanics does not
> > prevent very weird events from occuring, those events then occur and are as
> > real as this real. The chance to win the lottery is low, yet some wins...
>
> No they are not the same. QM rules out lots of things - anything that doesn't conserve 4-momentum for example.
That is true.
> Even more to the point QM rules out any future that doesn't evolve from the present in accordance with the Hamiltonian of the universe. It also rules out any universe that doesn't conform to quantum mechanics, e.g. a Newtonian universe. The measure of QM universes relative to "mathematically consistent universes" is essentially zero. I put "mathematically consistent universes" in scare quotes because I understand what it means for statements and propositions to be consistent, but I'm not sure what it means for universes, simpliciter, to be consistent.
That is true to. Consistency is a property of (sets of) propositions,
not
of structures. But if you Platonise all of current mathematics, it will
divide into incompatible regions due to incompatible axioms.
> 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 Thu Oct 26 2006 - 18:45:46 PDT