- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Wei Dai <weidai.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 15:23:16 -0700

On Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 11:15:52PM -0700, hal.domain.name.hidden wrote:

*> Yes, I think it is the former. The reference set is those observers who
*

*> are having identical observations to me. We all see the same display.
*

*> In some worlds Pi actually has that value, and in other worlds it has a
*

*> different value, but all see the same mathematica display. What is the
*

*> problem with this line of reasoning?
*

That seems to contradict what you said earlier:

*> They would reason something like:
*

*>
*

*> P (I observe "N[Pi]=3.14159" | PI == 3.14159 AND I am here/now, doing
*

*> this) is very high.
*

*> P (I observe "N[Pi]=3.14159" | PI != 3.14159 AND I am here/now, doing
*

*> this) is very low.
*

If the reference class only consist of people who observe "N[Pi]=3.14159"

then both probabilities would be one and you wouldn't be able to make any

conclusions. Also I don't understand what you mean by "in other worlds it

[Pi] has a different value". Pi always has the same value since it is a

mathematical constant not a physical constant.

*> Nick Bostrom and Robin Hanson had a debate on extropians, which I was
*

*> not able to follow very well. One of the issues seemed to be whether
*

*> the reference set should include rocks. That is interesting that the
*

*> SIA can be seen to follow from the assumption that the reference set
*

*> should be expanded like this.
*

*>
*

*> So does your Bayesian reasoning example work OK with either the strong
*

*> SSA and the "extra strong" SSA? Or are you saying now that the latter
*

*> is the only consistent position to allow you to derive the kinds of
*

*> implications in your mathematica example?
*

My example works ok with both. However I think there are reasons to prefer

the extra strong SSA over the strong SSA. I gave these reasons earlier.

Received on Tue Jun 08 1999 - 15:24:28 PDT

Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 15:23:16 -0700

On Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 11:15:52PM -0700, hal.domain.name.hidden wrote:

That seems to contradict what you said earlier:

If the reference class only consist of people who observe "N[Pi]=3.14159"

then both probabilities would be one and you wouldn't be able to make any

conclusions. Also I don't understand what you mean by "in other worlds it

[Pi] has a different value". Pi always has the same value since it is a

mathematical constant not a physical constant.

My example works ok with both. However I think there are reasons to prefer

the extra strong SSA over the strong SSA. I gave these reasons earlier.

Received on Tue Jun 08 1999 - 15:24:28 PDT

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