On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Russell Standish wrote:
> > 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.
Ok. Nothing in your paragraph contradicts what I said.
> > > 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)
No, the role of time. Higgo James has often stated his belief
that moments in time are really not connected.
> > 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?
It's the QTI claim together with the claim that an observer is
extended over all times at which he exists. Nonsense, yes.
From: GSLevy.domain.name.hidden
>Thank you Jacques for your detailed reply to my post asking about your
>concept of measure.
>It seems to me that you have made the assumption that the MWI only deals
>with "splitting" of the observer and not the "merging". This leads to the
>conclusion that under the Relative SSA the measure keeps increasing and we
>find ourselves to be very old in the most probable worlds.
>However, if we include merging of the observer, then we could end up with a
>Relative SSA in which measure is conserved.
Nope. The measure is conserved in the RSSA leading to the
infinite expected value for the age.
>This said, I find it difficult to talk about increase and decrease and making
>comparisons of the measure when the quantity in question is infinite.
Then take a calculus course. I consider the question a non-issue,
and I just spelled it out explicitly to try to get past it. Some limiting
proceedure is required. Same as always when dealing with infinities in
physics.
- - - - - - -
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 Mon Aug 30 1999 - 17:18:42 PDT