Re: zombie wives

From: Russell Standish <>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:50:30 +1000 (EST)

> 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.

Then maybe I misunderstood you. A tautology is a term with redundant
parts, ie it is equivalent to some subset of itself. I took your
statement that "ASSA is a tautology" to mean that ASSA is equivalent
to SSA (symbolically ASSA <=> SSA). I directly contradict this in my
first sentence.

> > > > 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.

This would be true in the full everything universe, which clearly
exists outside of time. Time itself arises as an emergent phenomenon
when one restricts one's attention to an appropriate domain. I have
pointed out in the past in this group that it is hard to conceive of
concsious entity without time, and Higgo James has conceded that
point, so it may not be terribly interesting to discuss universes
without time. Certainly, we exist in a portion of the everything
universe that has time, namely the MWI or Deutsch's Multiverse.

> > > 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.

I think we can agree on that point. However, I smell a straw man here.

> From:
> >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.

Or perhaps reread the elementary QM textbooks. There does appear to be
a lot of confusion over precisely what the multiverse is (Not the same
as the Everything universe of Tegmark), of measure, of time etc. I
applaud Jacques' attempts at clarifying these ideas and keeping us
honest. There will of course be several different measures applicable
to different sets. For example Wei Dai's universal measure (which
applies minimally over bitstrings representing different possibility)
is completely unrelated to measure induced by the "wavefunction of the
universe" in MWI, that Jacques refers to. The measure referred to in
RSSA is most likely the same as the MWI measure, rather than some
concept of number of differentiated classical states (eg concsious
states), particularly as the latter has the property of growing
exponentially with time.

> - - - - - - -
> Jacques Mallah (
> Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
> "I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
> My URL:

Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit,
University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Room 2075, Red Centre
Received on Mon Aug 30 1999 - 17:52:08 PDT

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