> Russell, I must recant for I have erred!
>
> For anyone else, the sight of a billion-year-old man
> would not prove or disprove the Quantum Theory of
> Immortality.
> But for you, at age 1 billion, the probability that you
> would reach a billion, given QTI, is one. And the
> probability that you would reach a billion given not-QTI
> is very tiny. So it is not unreasonable to believe QTI.
> I'm not sure you can really quantify this.
>
> On another note, the SSA is a dangerous to use
> when the Self is not a representative sample - the
> Self is immortal, whereas everyone else is not.
This is precisely my point. SSA can apply to birth order, but it
surely can't apply to subsequent concious moments.
Bruno mentioned a "relative SSA". I suspect he is trying to say the same
thing, but in a different way. How precisely would you define a
relative SSA?
Cheers, Russell.
>
> Regards
> James
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit,
University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 7123
Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Room 2075, Red Centre
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Mon May 17 1999 - 17:41:30 PDT