On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Russell Standish wrote:
[JM wrote]
> > 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.
Would it be so easy if copying (cloning) machines existed? I
don't think so. In this list, death also causes arguments. A definition
is needed.
> 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.
You must be doing more than asking questions since you claim to
have answers.
> 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)?
I left it out in the interests of diplomacy.
> 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.
OK.
> > 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 [complete] definition.
>
> Largely because none of these concepts are relevant.
That's news to me.
> > >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.
No, it is not an interpretation of what I mean by the ASSA.
Language may be a problem here, but since no one I know of believes in
random hopping, it is reasonable to define the ASSA as that which people
like me do believe. If someone were to join the list who believes in
hopping, let's call that the RHBS.
> > 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.
NO. In my view everything is deterministic. There is NO
randomness. Just a lot of observers with different observations.
*Effective* probability is proportional to the number/measure of those.
- - - - - - -
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 Tue Sep 21 1999 - 11:25:11 PDT