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

From: Jacques M. Mallah <jqm1584.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 14:26:17 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:

*> In a message dated 99-08-19 18:46:00 EDT, Jacques Mallah writes:
*

*> << Since the number of implementations is infinite and they are
*

*> parameterized by continuous parameters, only infinite groups of them have
*

*> any significance. This is analagous to coloring a surface. It does not
*

*> matter if one point on a surface is colored, what matters is the *area*
*

*> that is colored. Measure is analagous to such an area. It is
*

*> quantifiable because just as two people have twice as much consciousness
*

*> as one person, doubling the number of implementations would double the
*

*> measure. >>
*

*>
*

*> Jacques, I have a lot of trouble understanding what your conception of
*

*> measure is. Can it be expressed in some kind of units such as bits for
*

*> example? If it it can be expressed in bits, how can making two copies of an
*

*> identical document increase the amount of information (i.e., measure) ?
*

It is not related to quantities of information such as bits.

A document is not the sort of thing that can have measure; an

observation is, and with computationalism, a computation is. I suppose

that to a structuralist such as Wei Dai, the information written on a

document can give rise to consciousness and thus have measure.

*> Or is measure just the number of copies of the document without regard to the
*

*> information? Then, what possible significance (your word) would there be in
*

*> differentiating between the original and the copy?
*

Again, documents don't have measure in the first place. Measure

is the amount of consciousness, which I take to be proportional to the

number of implementations of a computation. Effective probabilities are

proportional to the measure, but the measure is a more fundamental

concept.

*> If measure is conserved, does making a copy spreads the measure between the
*

*> original and the copy, and thus the original ends up with less measure?
*

(If by copy it is understood that one makes a working copy of a

computer and runs the program, then) yes.

*> If measure is not conserved, does making a copy generates more measure?
*

(as above) yes, at least that's what happens in my view.

*> You use the word "significance." Why? Is it the same as saying that measure
*

*> has "value?" Is an original more "valuable" or have more measure than the
*

*> copy? Furthermore, why would deleting either the original or the copy be a
*

*> loss in measure?
*

Value is subjective. To a 'good' person, measure does have

value. 'Significance' in my above quote refers to the fact that a single

point, relative to an infinite number, has measure zero. You can say that

the switch from finite to infinite numbers forces us to use a renormalized

way of quantifying measure. I.e. if we define the measure of Bob at t0

to be 1, and in our model that person has N copies, then as N approaches

infinity the measure of a single copy approaches 0. But a person with 2N

copies would have measure 2, and this ratio of 1:2 is preserved in the

limit.

*> Could you please assign some units to quantify measure so that we can assess
*

*> its conservation (and other) properties. I believe that this is the first
*

*> step that must be taken to have a meaningful discussion.
*

It is dimensionless. You can change units by multiplying it by

any constant number, and that number can be infinite as in the above

example with Bob.

- - - - - - -

Jacques Mallah (jqm1584.domain.name.hidden)

Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate

"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum

My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/

Received on Thu Aug 26 1999 - 11:41:36 PDT

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 14:26:17 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:

It is not related to quantities of information such as bits.

A document is not the sort of thing that can have measure; an

observation is, and with computationalism, a computation is. I suppose

that to a structuralist such as Wei Dai, the information written on a

document can give rise to consciousness and thus have measure.

Again, documents don't have measure in the first place. Measure

is the amount of consciousness, which I take to be proportional to the

number of implementations of a computation. Effective probabilities are

proportional to the measure, but the measure is a more fundamental

concept.

(If by copy it is understood that one makes a working copy of a

computer and runs the program, then) yes.

(as above) yes, at least that's what happens in my view.

Value is subjective. To a 'good' person, measure does have

value. 'Significance' in my above quote refers to the fact that a single

point, relative to an infinite number, has measure zero. You can say that

the switch from finite to infinite numbers forces us to use a renormalized

way of quantifying measure. I.e. if we define the measure of Bob at t0

to be 1, and in our model that person has N copies, then as N approaches

infinity the measure of a single copy approaches 0. But a person with 2N

copies would have measure 2, and this ratio of 1:2 is preserved in the

limit.

It is dimensionless. You can change units by multiplying it by

any constant number, and that number can be infinite as in the above

example with Bob.

- - - - - - -

Jacques Mallah (jqm1584.domain.name.hidden)

Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate

"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum

My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/

Received on Thu Aug 26 1999 - 11:41:36 PDT

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