In that case most of your measure is in stable universes and dust theory isn't anything to worry about._

There are different ways of defining ,measure. DT guarantees that lack of continuity, and therefore low density, won't be subjectivtly noticeable....at least, it will look like chaotic observations , not feral like "I'm dead"

Dust theory has a weird pulled-up-by-your-own bootstraps taste to it and I have a strong aversion to regarding it as true, but Egan's argument against it is the best I can find and it's not entirely satisfying but should be sufficiently comforting to allow you to sleep.

Maybe you could include:

1. construed as a computation BY WHOM?

2. Computation is a process, and not any process, so the idea of an instantaneous computational state.

(There is a possible false dichotomy there: consciousness isnt the output of a computation that takes a lifetime to perform, but there could be still be millions of computatioNs required to generate a "specious present")

But that can't be the case, as isn't the whole point of dust theory that basically any set of relations can be construed as a computation implementing your subjective experience, and this experience is self-justifying?

Not necessarily to you. It doesn't have to make much sense to you at all. But our observations are orderly, and that is something that can't be explained by the majority of our measure being dust. Why would it default to this?

If you make Egan's assumption, I think it is an extremely strong argument.