So now I scanned over the “Dust theory FAQ” to which Z_M_Davis linked (thanks again!)
To
Q5: How seriously do you take the Dust Theory yourself?
Egan replies:
A5: Not very seriously, although I have yet to hear a convincing refutation of it on purely logical grounds. For example, some people have suggested that a sequence of states could only experience consciousness if there was a genuine causal relationship between them. The whole point of the Dust Theory, though, is that there is nothing more to causality than the correlations between states.
However, I think the universe we live in provides strong empirical evidence against the “pure” Dust Theory, because it is far too orderly and obeys far simpler and more homogeneous physical laws than it would need to, merely in order to contain observers with an enduring sense of their own existence. If every arrangement of the dust that contained such observers was realised, then there would be billions of times more arrangements in which the observers were surrounded by chaotic events, than arrangements in which there were uniform physical laws.
So, I would just add that the Dust theory of Egan (not without its followers on this side, it seems) can be supplemented by in an infinite universe of the right kind-approach …and voilà: we have pretty much what I say.
So now I scanned over the “Dust theory FAQ” to which Z_M_Davis linked (thanks again!)
To
Egan replies:
So, I would just add that the Dust theory of Egan (not without its followers on this side, it seems) can be supplemented by in an infinite universe of the right kind-approach …and voilà: we have pretty much what I say.
So why the hate?