Le 22-juin-05, à 19:50, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :
> I have one more question about measure :
>
> I don't understand the concept of 'increasing' and 'decreasing'
> measure if I
> assume everything exists.
Me neither. Especially when I accept, for the sake of some argument,
the ASSA
(Absolute Self-Sampling-Assumption) idea. If the measure is relative to
your current state/OM, then it makes at least as much sense than
> Because if everything exists... every OM has a
> successor (and I'd say it must always have more than one),
Perhaps. It depends of your definition of "OM", and of your
"everything" theory.
Let me tell you the "Lobian's answer": if I have a successor OM then I
have a successor OM which has no successor OM.
OK, I am cheating here, but not so much. As I just said to Stathis I
must find a way to convince people about the urgency of using the modal
logical tools.
> and concerning
> good or bad OM, every OM has "good" successor and "bad" successor.
> What I
> want to mean is that, I get 100% chance that at least one (I'd say
> many) of
> my futur selves will go in hell, and at least one (I'd say also many)
> will
> have great experiences. And this, whatever I do... because when I do
> something, the universe split, and there are branches were I do other
> thing.
> I can't constraint the choice. So what is the meaning of increasing and
> decreasing measure ? What is wrong in every OM has a successor in an
> everything context ?
Here too I could give a precise answer, which is that every OM has a
successor, when looking at some absolute third person view, but that
that truth is not communicable by the 1-person observer ....
<sigh>. Have you bought the Smullyan's "FU" ? (Forever Undecided)
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Fri Jun 24 2005 - 09:26:59 PDT