>
> On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Russell Standish wrote:
> [JM wrote]
> > > Obviously you don't understand. With the ASSA, it is always
> > > possible to find the conditional probability of an observation given a
> > > suitable condition. Choosing a condition and asking a question about it
> > > changes nothing about the real situation.
> > > The difference between the ASSA and RSSA really becomes apparent
> > > when the ASSA predicts nonconservation of measure as a function of time.
> > > Obviously this does not happen in most everyday, nonfatal situations.
> >
> > Unless you've changed your spots Jacques, you are starting to become
> > incoherent. ASSA is not defined with reference to time, so therefore
> > cannot make any statements about it. The RSSA is.
>
> What are you talking about? I really don't know.
> The ASSA states, and always has, that the effective probability of
> an observer moment is proportional to it measure. Time doesn't enter
> this definition, in the same way that seeing a color doesn't enter; the
> general rule needs no modification to be applied in either case.
> It was super-obvious in my post that when I talked about a function
> of time above I was referring to the fact that the measure of observer
> moments along a computational continuation varies with time.
> The RSSA, as far as I can see, is not defined at all. I have
> tried to extropolate the descriptions you guys give into some kind of
> coherent position for me to attack, but it seems to me that you often
> contradict yourselves while denying any such contradictions. The role of
> time in the RSSA is a case in point.
The RSSA is the SSA applied to the set of immediate future observer
moments linked to the current observer moment (the "now"). Ihis is why
time is integral in its definition. The ASSA is the SSA applied to the
set of all observer moments (of say of all human beings). The RSSA
gives predictions about what anyone of us will observe next, which the
ASSA cannot do unless one assumes that we're randomly hopping around
the set of all observer moments (an extremely solipsistic position).
I think it is fairly clear what the definitions are in both these cases.
>
> BTW, while I'm posting I might as well ask, if you guys are so
> darn sure consciousness is continuous and that it somehow means it cannot
> end, how come you seem to have no problem with birth? It seems to me that
> your arguments would apply equally in that direction. How come you have
> no trouble picturing a boundary for it in the past? I'm sure you'll come
> up with some BS answer but this once again shows the foolishness of your
> position.
>
> - - - - - - -
> 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/
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sep 16 1999 - 02:07:57 PDT