RE: Bayesian boxes and Independence of Scales

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 10:30:28 +0100

        Sage words from Wei Dai; I had not read them before my earlier reply
to Jacques. His problems stem from his conviction that 'identity' is more
than 'some personal identity relationship'. I know of no evidence which
would lead us to believe 'that personal identity is inherent in the
mathematical structure of the universe'.

        James
        PS I've seen other lists set up so that when you reply it goes to
the list, not the author of the post you're replying to. Can this be done
here too?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wei Dai [SMTP:weidai.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Sunday, May 16, 1999 4:26 AM
> To: GSLevy.domain.name.hidden
> Cc: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: Bayesian boxes and Independence of Scales
>
> On Sat, May 15, 1999 at 07:58:27PM -0400, GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> > I agree the conclusion is weird. However, As Wei Dai mentioned we need
> to
> > revise the concept of probability in the context of the MW. The
> logarithmic
> > distribution was just an example. IN FACT THE DISTRIBUTION CAN BE
> ANYTHING AS
> > LONG AS IT SATISFIES THE EXPECTATION VALUE = m FOR THE SECOND BOX..
>
> I haven't been following this thread closely, but I want to point out that
> I no longer advocate a revision of the concept of probability. I
> originally suggested a revision to fix some paradoxes in the section of
> Max Tegmark's paper about predicting my future observations based on my
> current observations. But now I realize that section is really about
> predicting the the observations of someone chosen randomly from a group
> related to me by some personal identity relationship, and the paradoxes
> disappear when seen from this perspective.
>
> I still have a problem with that section because it assumes that personal
> identity is inherent in the mathematical structure of the universe,
> whereas I consider the relationship to be subjective and arbitrary, but
> this is a seperate issue.
Received on Mon May 17 1999 - 02:28:27 PDT