>
> On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Russell Standish wrote:
> > With the ASSA, the well defined set is that of being a concious
> > entity, or of being a human. That part is fine. However, it explicitly
> > ignores the fact that I have a particular identity. For example, I can
> > ask the question "Why do I wake up every morning to find that I am
> > Russell Standish" The ASSA must either say that this is a nonsensical
> > question, or that time and identity are merely illusions. I am Russell
> > Standish now, but only have an illusionary memory that I was Russell
> > Standish in the past - illusionary because there is no such thing as a
> > past. It is this solipsitic argument that I find most unsatisfactory,
> > and hardest to deal with. David Deutsh gives an admirable refutation
> > of solipsism in his FOR book, but it is not 100% convincing.
>
> 1) First "you" must be defined, otherwise the question is indeed
> nonsensical.
The "you" referred to is a category. I think it reasonable to assume
it is well defined, as most people have no trouble recognising me,
even after years of separation, and probably having my material
componets recycled several times.
Now with RSSA, we are selecting a particular observer moment of that
you, and asking questions about the relative probability of the
observer connected in a future sense to that observer moment.
2) To the extent that it is an illusion, it is NOT because
> there is no past! Of course there is a past, in most theories of physics.
> Thing is, if "you" are identified with one observer-moment (a matter of
> definition), "you" just weren't around then.
What happened to point 3)?
4) Try to keep a damper on
> the bullshit like making up nonsense 'predictions' like the nonexistence
> of time and trying to tar the ASSA with them.
ASSA does not make predictions of nonexistence of time - it has
nothing to say on the subject of time.
>
> > Incidently, it is unfair to ask a question like whether I'm Chinese or
> > not Chinese of a SSA.
>
> Seems fair to me, as long as you expect only a probabilistic
> answer and don't already know.
>
> From: Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>
> >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.
>
> You have made no mention of an identity function, effective vs.
> stochastic probability, James Higgo's & David Deutch's 'timeless universe'
> BS, and other stuff. Hardly a comple definition.
Largely because none of these concepts are relevant.
>
> >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).
>
> LOOK, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO SAY THIS AGAIN. THIS RUMOR THAT THE
> ASSA IS RELATED TO "RANDOM HOPPING" IS BS. DON'T MAKE ME SMACK YOU.
Fine - however the fact remains that it is one interpretation of ASSA,
and it is not an interpretation to which you subscribe. Therefore, you cannot
make any predictions whatsoever about what individuals will observe
about themselves.
> There is no randomness in the ASSA. That would require an
> identity function (mind-like hidden variables) + new laws of physics that
> are stochastic. *Effective* probability + deterministic phyics only,
> please.
The Sampling of the SSA term implies a random selection process. Over
and above that, of course there is no additional randomness required.
>
> From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
> >Could someone explain me the difference between the RSSA and
> >the SSA + the conditional rule ?
> >In most previous posts I agree with Russell Standish
> >and George Levy on these questions.
> >Accepting I'm BrunoM just now, there is a high probability I'm
> >BrunoM in the very near future. This follows RSSA (as
> >SSA + conditional rule).
> >
> >Following the ASSA I could as well be a precambrian bacteria
> >in the near futur.
> >What is going wrong here ?
>
> You are. As I have said so many times, one must first define
> "you". There are three reasonable possibilities in the ASSA:
> 1. One particular observer-moment. You have no past and no future.
> 2. A set of observer moments linked by computation. With this
> definition the problem is that "you" may be two (or more) people at the
> same time! The advantage with this definition is that one can predict
> effective probabilities of what "you" will see at other times similar to
> what you want to do with the RSSA. Thing is, if there is nonconservation
> of measure, the predictions start to differ from the RSSA about things
> like how old you should expect to be. Remember, testable prediction do
> NOT depent on definitions, so it is often better to use def. #1 to prevent
> such confusion.
> 3. A particular implementation of an extended computation. Similar to
> 2; allows death, when that implementation ends. I prefer this or #1.
>
This paragraph is getting particularly incoherent. The "you" is a
recognisable pattern within the multiverse. As such, it is closest to
your definition 2. Of course there will be multiple independent
observer moments of "you" at the same time, just as at any level of a
tree there are multiple branches.
You use the term computation explicitly, I suppose appealing to Bruno's
acceptance of the comp hypothesis. As per previous discussion in this
group, it appears that I do not accept comp, however it would be
interesting to follow this line of argument to see if any
contradictions arise. I would be surprised if assumption of comp would
make any difference to the conclusions of RSSA, but my intuition could
be wrong.
> >It is also so obvious for me that Everett uses the RSSA.
> >Remember that Everett call his theory ``the relative state
> >interpretation of QM"
>
> SLAP!!! That has nothing to do with anything! Everett's
> 'relative state' is just the state obtained by projecting onto a substate.
> e.g. in |a>|b> + |c>|d>, the state relative to |a> is |b>.
> I think Everett was a fairly smart guy. Unless I am 100% wrong on
> that estimate of his intelligence, he would reject the RSSA.
>
> >Could someone tell me what is exactly the probability
> >domain for the ASSA ?
>
> The set of observer-moments.
>
> > And how does he compute the probability of beeing in state X in the near
> > future knowing he is in state Y now?
>
> It depends on the definition of "he".
>
> >And then explain me the difference with the RSSA ?
>
> I'll let someone else try that one.
>
> - - - - - - -
> 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 Fri Sep 17 1999 - 02:18:05 PDT