Le 28-mai-05, à 14:32, Saibal Mitra a écrit :
>
> I'm actually still with the ASSA. I agree that if there is no
> cul-de-sac,
> you can always redefine an observer moment by including the
> information that
> he has survived a suicide experiment. But I would consider that
> observer
> moment to have a lower measure than the 'previous' one.
OK, thanks. Now if I am correct you should not assume comp.
> Also, if you take
> the first person relative measure serious, then you have to deal with
> transitions between different persons. Time evolution in both
> classical and
> quantum mechanics of an isolated system will yield any state if you
> wait
> long enough. So, you will evolve into me (and everything else).
Perhaps.
> Now you can
> cut away these states just like the unconscious states, but since the
> total
> number of OMs that you can consider to be 'you' is finite you then end
> up
> with an absolute measure over your 'reference class'.
Right. But with comp the relative measure from one OM is based on all
comp histories going through that states. We should not measure the OM
by its finite description, but from relative consistent extension point
of view. Most cannot be distinguished from the OM, but still their
existence and the measure can be inferred indirectly like in Everett
(or directly like with the interview of the Lobian Machine).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Sat May 28 2005 - 11:46:02 PDT