RE: normalization

From: Jacques M. Mallah <>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 18:17:57 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Higgo James wrote:
> >From the bigger perspective, I don't believe QTI as I don't believe in time
> or an objective relationship between thoughts. Both are necessary for QTI to
> make sense.
> But for the purposes of our subjective, everyday world, I believe in QTI. I
> simply do not understand why you don't (I really must be thick, or perhaps
> it's the emperor's new clothes).
> Put yourself in the cat's shoebox. You can expect to be there at tea-time.
> You can plan to go and catch mice. The fact that you will not be there in
> 50% of 'subsequent' universes is quite irrelevant.

        What do you mean by "you can expect to be there"? That is
misleading. The fact is that the effective probability for a Cat-like
observation to be in the future (after the experiment) rather than before
it is reduced. And the effective probability for an observation in the
future to be Cat-like (as opposed to, say, dog-like) is reduced.
        And of course, the Cat's total measure is reduced by the
experiment, which is bad for the Cat.
        Suppose the Cat exists in type A universes; that's good. Suppose
the Cat exists in type B universes; that's also good. Suppose in both
types (where they have equal measure); that's twice as good. Two Cats are
better than one for the same reason doubling the Cat's lifespan is
good. (Well, almost; one could argue that an older, wiser Cat is better
than a young, foolish Cat.)

                         - - - - - - -
               Jacques Mallah (
         Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
             My URL:
Received on Sat Feb 05 2000 - 15:20:08 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST