On 12 Feb 2009, at 02:59, Jack Mallah wrote:
>
> Hi George. The everything list feels just like old times, no?
I am afraid we are just a bit bactracking 10 years ago.
No problem. After all, concerning theology, I am asking people to
backtrack 1500 years ago (1480 to be precise).
> Which is nice in a way but has a big drawback - I can only take so
> much of arguing the same old things, and being outnumbered. And
> that limit is approaching fast again. At least I think your point
> here is new to the list.
>
> --- On Wed, 2/11/09, George Levy <glevy.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>> One could argue that measure actually increases continuously and
>> corresponds to the increase in entropy occurring in everyday life.
>> So even if you are 90 or 100 years old you could still experience
>> an increase in measure.
>
> I guess you are basing that on some kind of branch-counting idea.
>
> If that were the case, the Born Rule would fail. Perhaps the
> probability rule would be more like proportionality to norm^2
> exp(entropy) instead of just norm^2. If that was it, then for
> example unstable nuclei would be observed to decay a lot faster than
> the Born Rule predicts.
>
> Conventional half life calculations are accurate. So either entropy
> would not be a factor, or the MWI is experimentally disproven
> already. Well, if it is a weak enough function of entropy then
> maybe it hasn't been disproven, but inclusion of free parameters
> like that which can always be made small enough goes against Occam's
> Razor. Otherwise there'd be no end of possible correction factors.
>
> At least your idea was testable, with none of the meaningless "first
> person" sloganeering. Ideas like that, keep em' coming!
So you stop at step two of the UDA?
What is wrong with the definition of first and third person views
notion? I gave a complete third person definition of both notions.
(see the SANE 2004 paper). Or look at the arithmetical definition (the
Theaetetic one);
>
>
>> In any case, measure is measured over a continuum and its value is
>> infinite to begin with. So whether it increases or decreases may be
>> a moot point.
>
> It's not moot. Just take density ratios. The size of the universe
> may be infinite, but that didn't stop Hubble from saying it's
> getting bigger.
>
>> As I said, the increase or decrease in measure is at the crux of
>> this problem. Your paper really did not illuminate the issue in a
>> satisfactory manner.
>
> It could no doubt use some tweaking, which is why I'm on the list
> now. I know I'm not always a good communicator. What should be
> clarified or added to it?
You say: "no randomness involved" but you seem to accept
probabilities. Do I just miss something here?
You seem not taking the 1 pov / 3 pov distinction seriously into
account. What does mean "questioning immortality" then?
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Thu Feb 12 2009 - 11:00:18 PST