>
> 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.
>
I guess this is one of the open questions that we agree to disagree
on. I don't believe cloning complicates the situation much (about as
much as twins do in our existing reality).
In any case, exact definitions would vary from individual to
individual, and from observer to observer. However, this does not stop
us from constructing a theory assuming a well defined class, and a set
of observers that agree about that class, without specifying the class
exactly. The properties ascribed to that class should therefore be
invarient of the exact definition.
> > 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.
Good grief! This is not even worth commenting on.
>
> > 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.
>
What about what your observers actually observe? That is random. This
appears to be a level of description problem again - from the bird's
eye view of the system, it evolves according to determinsitic laws -
this is what the ASSA is discussing. From the point of view of the
observer in the system (Max's frog perspective), the system is only
partially deterministic, with a large stochastic component. This is
the level of description that the RSSA operates on. Yes, this property
is related to the issue of emergence, and yes people seem to have
endless debates about emergence too, although I believe that issue is
largely resolved.
The two levels of description do not have the same predictions for the
same system, as the terminology employed in the two languages are
different. Just as the microscopic description of a gas cannot discuss
entropy. The microscopic decsription predicts reversible dynamics,
whereas the macroscopic description predicts the opposite. what must
be true is that a consistent connective theory must exist connecting
the two. In the case of thermodynamics and atomic theory, this is
given by statistical mechanics. In our case, the ASSA and the RSSA are
probably connected by a measurement theory of quantum mechanics,
something about which we have only the vague outline at present.
> - - - - - - -
> 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 Tue Sep 21 1999 - 17:19:25 PDT