>
>
> I use the terms SSA, ASSA, RSSA only because others on the list
> insist on using them. In my opinion the 'ASSA' is a tautology and not
> an assumption, while the 'RSSA' is an error.
>
ASSA <!=> SSA. ASSA makes explicit the sample set over which SSA is
applied. So does RSSA (the sample set being different to the ASSA
case). A third possibility is SSA of birth rank, as used in Leslie
Carter's arguments.
> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Russell Standish wrote:
> > Now this implies that an individual's measure decreases the older that
> > individual gets. This is the basis of Jacques' argument against
> > QTI. In absolute SSA, an individual concious being is a sample from
> > the set of all observer moments. There is no time, one just is. Under
> > this picture, one could never expect to be all that old.
>
> Ok so far.
>
> > Under relative SSA, there is time. Each observer moment is connected
> > to a range (presumably infinite) of future observer moments. The
>
> Here's where the position of the QS camp appears to diverge from
> other positions of QSers, notably Higgo James, who of course endorses both
> seemingly contradictory positions.
>
Sorry - what are the seemingly contradictory position? Whether one
assumes ASSA or RSSA? (these are contradictory positions, and
give rise to different predictions about QTI)
> > relative SSA predicts that the observer will see at the next instant
> > of time an observer moment with the greatest measure, subject to its
> > lying in the future of the current observer moment. That measure may
> > be fantastically small (eg just prior to a fatal crash) - it just has
> > to be the largest from that set.
>
> No. If every observer sees all future moments, then the amount of
Whoa there! Noone said anything about every observer seeing all future
moments. Where did this piece of nonsense come from?
> consciousness does not decrease with time, and thus the measure stays
> constant over time. This has the consequence that, for a given observer,
> over most of his lifetime he will find himself to be very old. It may
> seem that I am mixing in the ASSA when I say that, therefore, the fact
> that we do not find ourselves old is evidence against the RSSA. The truth
> is I can not avoid this way of thinking any more than I could believe that
> 1+1=3.
>
> - - - - - - -
> 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/
>
>
I have an algorithm for dealing with any of Jacques' statements that I
find surprising. I try to deconstruct his argument to see where he
assumes ASSA. I then replace the assumption of ASSA with RSSA, and
reproduce the argument. To date, I have always come up with the
opposite conclusion, one that seems in accord with my views. I have
yet to find a disagreement that doesn't ultimately boil down to our
disagreement over whether ASSA or RSSA is applicable.
Cheers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Thu Aug 26 1999 - 18:06:30 PDT