QTI, SSI (fwd)

From: Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 10:40:32 +1000 (EST)

> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST