2009/2/11 Jack Mallah <jackmallah.domain.name.hidden>
>
> --- On Wed, 2/11/09, Quentin Anciaux <allcolor.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> > From a 1st perspective commonness is useless in the argument. The
> important is what it feels like for the experimenter.
>
> You seem to be saying that commonness of an experience has no effect on,
> what for practical purposes, is whether people should expect to experience
> it. That is a contradiction in terms. It is false by definition. If an
> "uncommon" experience gets experienced just as often as a "common"
> experience, then by definition they are equally common and have equal
> measure.
>
>
That's not what I said. I said however uncommon an experience is, if it
exists... it exists by definition, if mwi is true, and measure is never
strictly null for any particular moment to have a successor then any moment
has a successor hence there exists a me moment of 1000 years old and it is
garanteed to be lived by definition.
What you're saying is uncommon moment are *never* experienced (means their
measure is strictly null), for the QI argument to hold it is suffisant to
have at least *one* next moment for every moment.
Quentin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Wed Feb 11 2009 - 17:45:32 PST