Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow

From: Jesse Mazer <lasermazer.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:21:18 -0500

George Levy wrote:

>
>Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>>George Levy:
>>
>>>Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>>we are "conscious" only because we belong to a continuum of infinite
>>>>never ending stories ...
>>>>...that's what the lobian machine's "guardian angel" G* says about
>>>>that: true and strictly unbelievable.
>>>
>>>Bruno
>>>Since you agree that the number of histories is on a continuum, you must
>>>accept that no matter how large or small a segment of the continuum is
>>>considered, the number of histories is the same. Hence measure is the
>>>same for any observer.
>>
>>
>>The whole concept of "measure" is based on assigning different
>>probabilities to different infinite sets--the fact that two sets have the
>>same cardinality doesn't imply they must have the same measure. For
>>example, any continuous probability distribution used in statistics (the
>>bell curve, for example) can be used to assign a measure to an arbitrary
>>finite interval (which necessarily contains an infinite number of points),
>>the measure just being the area under the curve over that interval.
>>
>>Jesse
>
>
>Jesse I agree with you from the third person perspective. You can only take
>a measure of infinite sets when you have more then one set . In other words
>you need at least two sets so you can compare them. However in the case of
>first person perspective, the observer has only his own set. All he has is
>the cardinality of the set and he has only one set. No other set to compare
>it to. The cardinality is the same for all first person observers.
>
>George
>

But if you have one set with an infinite number of elements, you can assign
different measures to different infinite subsets of that set. And weren't
you talking about an infinite "number of histories" above?

Jesse
Received on Tue Dec 13 2005 - 23:25:39 PST