2009/4/28 Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp.domain.name.hidden>:
> 2009/4/27 Jason Resch <jasonresch.domain.name.hidden>:
>
>> I am not sure that the measure problem can be so easily
>> abandoned/ignored. Assuming every Observer Moment had has an equal
>> measure, then the random/white-noise filled OMs should vastly
>> outnumber the ordered and sensible OMs. Though I ever only have one
>> OM to go by, the fact I was able to maintain a
>> non-random/non-white-noise filled OMs long enough to compose this post
>> should serve as some level of evidence that all OMs are not weighted
>> equally.
>
> One remark that could be made about this oft-stated assertion is that
> you don't *know* you have maintained a series of non-random OM's
> orderly enough and long enough to compose this post. All you can be
> certain about is your present OM, and it may be the only OM in all the
> universes, anywhere or ever. In ot
[Oops, didn't finish!]
In other words, it's impossible to know anything about other OM's from
within your own OM, except from a godlike stance outside the
multiverse. But this doesn't stop us drawing conclusions from the
(perhaps untrue) assumption that there are many OM's and the present
one is sampled randomly from them.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Tue Apr 28 2009 - 00:37:58 PDT