# RE: zombie wives

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:25:34 +0100

I'm not sure this is a fruitful line of inquiry if nobody can think of any
reason why there might ever be a cul-de-sac branch. Furthermore, the idea of
a 'cul-de-sac-branch implies an observer-moment without an observer. I'm
confident that there is no such thing.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 1999 1:22 AM
> To: dude.domain.name.hidden
> Cc: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: zombie wives
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Russell Standish wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 4. Subjective probabilities can be computed on the basis of the
> > > > Strong SSA, and we get
> > > > P(H, t1) = 1/2
> > > > P(H, t2) = P(H, t3) = 2/3
> > > > If this is the case, then I think we have to throw Tegmark's
> > > > scheme using Bayesian statistics out the window. This option
> > > > has severe metaphysical problems, though, in my opinion. I
> > > > think Hal was saying, in his post, either this option, or
> > > > option 1 above, but I'm not sure.
> > > >
> > > > 5. Subjective probabilities can be computed, and we should expect
> > > > the common-sense results
> > > > P(H, t1) = 1/2
> > > > P(H, t2) = P(H, t3) = 1/2
> > > >
> > > > It's a fair coin, after all, right?
> > > > I think this gets Gilles' and Bruno's vote (and Russell's?)
> > > >
> > > > 6. Subjective probabilities can be computed, and we should expect
> > > > the nonsensical results
> > > > P(H, t1) = 2/3
> > > > P(H, t2) = P(H, t3) = 2/3
> > > >
> > >
> > > If the probabilities can be computed, then compute them. I have
> > > computed the probabilities as being 1/2,1/2. If you compute them as
> > > 1/3,2/3, then you need to advance a similar computation, and then for
> > > good measure, show me where I erred. Probability calculations are
> > > notorious for their subtleties, so I won't take offence at being shown
> > > wrong. At present, the only argument I can see that gives the
> > > probabilities as 1/3,2/3 is the one based on the strong SSA - (your
> > > point 4) - an assumption that I reject.
> >
> > Clearly there is not enough information to simply "compute" the
> > probabilities from Jane's subjective perspective, without making
> > the measure of each branch is unaffected by its future evolution.
>
> True - but I think this is currently a pretty fair assumption.
>
>
> >
> >
> > > A reverse causality type of argument would assume that you would never
> > > enter branches that have no escape routes. I have toyed with this
> > > idea, but reject it - principally because I have yet to see an example
> > > of a branch with no escape route, so in essence it becomes
> > > meaningless
> >
> > This makes no sense to me. Let's rewind it -- You have yet to see a
> > branch with no escape route. Fine, I haven't either. Let's assume
> there
> > are none. The reverse causality argument would assume that you never
> > enter branches that have no escape routes. Fine, we've just assumed
> that
> > there are none. So what's the problem?
> >
> >
> > >, but if there were such brances - my belief in foward
> > > causality is so strong, I would prefer to question quantum
> > > immortality, than to invoke reverse causality as a way of salvaging
> > > QI.
> >
> > Yes, I guess I've been trying to make the point that QTI implies reverse
> > causality. I think it does.
> >
>
> Yes - but only if cul-de-sac branches exist. My point is that QTI is
> not proven, and shouln't be assumed to be true. Existence of
> cul-de-sac branches + absence of reverse causality would imply QTI is
> false.
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Chris Maloney
> > http://www.chrismaloney.com
> >
> > "Donuts are so sweet and tasty."
> > -- Homer Simpson
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Dr. Russell Standish Director
> High Performance Computing Support Unit,
> University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
> Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 6965
> Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
> Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
Received on Fri Aug 20 1999 - 02:30:42 PDT

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