I should have said, "you could *not* just take any files from any folder and
cobble together an individual history..." For example, the version of me
that got this sentence right the first time has split off and spawned a
whole new set of files/OM's, none of which can be incorporated into the
history of the version writing this erratum, unless purely by chance they
happen to "fit in".
--Stathis Papaioannou
>>I think that your example below was helpful to clarify the disagreement.
>>You say that randomly sampling from all the files is not 'how real life
>>works'. However, if you did randomly sample from all the files the result
>>would not be different from the selective time ordered sampling you
>>suggest,
>>as long as the effect of dying (reducing the absolute measure) can be
>>ignored.
>
>You would have to follow the branching pattern as defined by the program. I
>suggested that one file is chosen at random from each folder and a new
>folder generated from this file. It would be very resource-hungry, but it
>is simple enough to imagine the computer generating the entire multiverse,
>i.e. each file branching out to a new folder, each file in each new folder
>branching out to another new folder, and so on. This would generate all the
>OM's associated with an individual. However, you could *not* just take any
>files from any folder and cobble together an individual history, which is
>what would happen if you sample files at random. To create an individual
>history, you have to trace a single path through the (perhaps infinitely)
>branching tree, which is a very different matter. This is true even if you
>ignore the effect of dying, so each folder/time slice has the same number
>of files/same measure.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Received on Tue May 31 2005 - 02:11:28 PDT