On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote: > 2011/2/5 1Z <[email protected]> > > > > > > > On Feb 5, 1:08 pm, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > in MWI (and QM) you have WR, so in the multiverse there exists at every > > > moments splitting or differentiation to random universe, so the question > > of > > > what filter it out remains (if MWI is true)... > > > > What I want to say is "the answer is because *you* are in that > > environment", > > > you the consciousness, the constraint come from being conscious, and I > > don't > > > think you can be conscious where you're not and obviously, for *your* > > person > > > to be conscious like you are now you must be here (in this universe ?) > > > because that's what you observe, your next moment should be a moment > > where > > > you are *you* and not someone else, > > > But I am not defined by having exactly the same experience at > > all times. I am defined by a having a coherent set of memories, > > but (in a mathematical multiverse) a coherent set of memories up until > > time T can be stitched > > onto surreal experiences at time T+1. (which sort of happens > > in dreams anyway). I can think to myself "Why am I, a person > > who was born in such-and-such a place and went to school in such-and- > > such a place > > and who has every reason to believe there are no talking giant white > > rabbits now suddenly seeing a WR". > > You can up until you are not you anymore... ie: until you can say I'm am > Peter Jones and you know it.
When I have 99% coherent memories and 1% surreal memories, I can say it.. when it is 98%/2% I can say it...it would be convenient for you if I lost all sense of self the very instant anything weird happened, but we carry a lot of baggage with us and it takes a lot to erase it. > So all *your* experiences are filtered amongs only the Peter Jones > experiences. > > > > > > hence all the someone else moments have > > > a zero measure to be your next moments, but it is sure that there are > > hugely > > > more moments of "not you" than there are moments which are you... so the > > > filtering is you. > > > In a MMV, there have to be many more me's with incoherent future > > experiences > > following on from my current memories, that there are me's with > > coherent > > future experiences. > > That's my point, COMP does not add more white rabbits from this pov. I dare say. But the Mathematical Multiverses do add a lot more WRs than physical multiverses. > My point is ***when you are asking why am I in this *coherent* moments is > because you are effectively in that coherent moments... you would'nt ask > that if you were in incoherent moments, If I was in some little personal bubble of coherency I could still ask why everything else is so incoherent -- and that is just one of many stitchings of order to disorder that exist in the MMV -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
