--- Fred Chen <flipsu5.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> Surely, the idea that 'you' have a somewhat
> 'predictable future' exists in a different (more
> 'meaningful') sense from its antithesis?
Of course, you can use a practical definition, as
long as you don't confuse it with a fundamental
definition.
To try to be more precise you can label the set of
all observer-moments with characteristics X,Y and Z as
"Fred#25". Then consider the conditional effective
probability that a "Fred#25" observer-moment, if it
exists on 5/16/2000 at 12:00 PM and sees how the
weather is, will see rain. There are other ways of
generalizing this.
Another way to go is to consider an implementation
of a computation, extended over time, as "you". You
can't tell which implementation you are just from the
available information in an observer-moment.
Fundamentally, all predictions are unaltered because
this is just a definition. "You" are then more likely
to be an implementation that lives for many time
steps, but only in proportion to the number of steps;
the measure distribution on observer-moments (time
steps) is thus unaltered.
=====
- - - - - - -
Jacques Mallah (jackmallah.domain.name.hidden)
Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
My URL:
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
Received on Mon May 15 2000 - 18:26:54 PDT