new form of time: some people have worked on probabilities at the MWI, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128253-700-time-need-not-end-in-the-multiverse/ “cosmologists, who want to use probabilities to make predictions”…”How can we say
that anything is more or less probable than anything else?
“One procedure physicists are fond of is to draw a cut-off at some finite time, count up the number of events – say, heads and tails – that occur in the multiverse before the cut-off time, and use that as a representative sample.”
“you are handed a fair coin to flip. You will not be allowed to see the outcome, and the moment the coin lands you will fall into a deep sleep. If the coin lands heads up, [a person] will wake you 1 minute later; tails, in 1 hour. Upon waking, you will
have no idea how long you have just slept.”…”would you like [to make a preference known for] heads or tails? Knowing it’s a fair coin, you assume your odds are 50/50, so you choose tails [long nap].” [The person] knows you will almost certainly
[not get your preference], because she is factoring in something you haven’t: that we live in a multiverse.
…”something strange happens. Wherever the cut-off is drawn, it slices through some of the [potential napper’s] naps, making it appear as if those [nappers] simply never woke up. The longer the nap, the more likely it is to be cut off, so if you do
awaken, it’s more likely that you have taken a shorter nap – that is, that you flipped heads. So even though the odds seemed to be 50/50 when the coins were first flipped, heads becomes more probable than tails once you and the other [person] wake up.
“This thought experiment was unbelievably perplexing at first, because it seemed like probabilities were changing from one instant to the next without any explanation,” says Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who along with
Vitaly Vanchurin of Stanford University in California, came up with the conundrum two years ago.
Last year, Raphael Bousso at the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues devised an explanation that was effective, if unsettling. The changing probabilities were behaving as if time ends at the cut-off, they said, because time really does end
at the cut-off. That’s why the initial 50/50 odds change when you wake up from your nap.
Upon waking, you have new information: you know that time didn’t end. That now means it is more likely that you only slept for a minute than for an hour. After all, time could end at any minute, and an hour has an extra 59 of those to spare. Heads wins.
The idea that time must end for the probabilities to make sense has been bugging Guth and Vanchurin for the last year. Now they say they have developed a mathematical explanation for the multiverse that saves the fourth dimension (arxiv.org/abs/1108.0665)
.
The essence of the argument is that you don’t need any new information, in this case the fact that you woke up, to understand why the odds are no longer 50/50. In a multiverse that grows exponentially, where each new generation of universes is far
larger than the last, younger universes always outnumber older ones. Waking up, you will either be in a universe in which 1 minute has passed (heads), or in a universe in which 1 hour has passed (tails). “The experiment sets up a 59-minute ambiguity in
the age of the universe,” Guth says. “You should always [preferentially favor] on the younger one.”” (my perception of what this is saying is that because you are much more likely to be in a recent branch of a young universe the long nap/short
nap odds go back to equal; there’s almost no likelihood of early termination) So, could some variation on this create customized intervals of ambiguous time?
Would there be any advantage to the previously written material on how using a delayed quantum choice eraser (DQCE) to retrocausally observe which sperm sample was used to create a child, causing a future ability to rechoose the sperm sample, and
associated person’s characteristics be applied with this different 59 minute time ambiguity? Say you have 10 super wonderful sperm samples. To create and emphasize benefit, the parent could even be measured as variably preferring one over the other,
the variance depending on the day they thought about it. That’s an approach to determining two equally valued sperm samples. Then do the two-item MWI probability thing described at New Scientist, producing a 20 year “time ambiguity” as to the well
being and generally beneficence of the child. One child cures death, the other is Jeffrina Bezos who started Amazon.com, reducing incurred expenses for any particular product across the global economy. Curing death is better, so is there a way to use
the 20 year ambiguity to populate the largest number of universes with the cure for death? The delayed quantum choice eraser (DQCE) is a possible approach.
The advantage here is that if, as the article says, the vast majority of children are/will be created in newly branched universes, then you can populate these larger quantity of MWI universes with more optimal genetically optimized children. This then of
course benefits the other people that interact with them, as well as the society generally.
Noting the New Scientist “time ambiguity” where you know you are usually populating new universes, you can populate the many new universe branches with optimized genetics of children. You can use retrocausally different sperm or eggs, based on the 20
year interval of measuring wellness, including happiness, and beneficence of the children, using the DCQE. Doing that retrocausally with the DQCE might move the better sperm up (more previous) at the causal/MWI tree’s branching limb, from the 20 year
evaluation-based rechoice (rechoice, unless you like the outcome at your universe). The thing about changing the past is that you also populate a really vast number of MWI branch universes. I am not yet aware of anything online that figures out the
difference in volume of effect from changing pretime things as compared with the volume of effect from a bunch of fresh branches at Now time. It could be that the area-volume of new universe things grows at a constant rate regardless of when it occurs.

Perhaps if you are making one selection out of 1000 equally perceived as wonderful sperm samples, the process can be repeated at a multiplex/1000 laser path DQCE to (noting the varied beneficence of the different children at your universe) find the most
optimal of the 1000 sperm samples.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)