Re: tautology

From: Jacques M. Mallah <>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 19:29:06 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Russell Standish wrote:
> 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).

        Very different. Before copying there is one of you. What about
after? Are you one of the copies, or both?

> 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.

        Obviously it does stop us since we disagree on the properties.

[JM wrote]
> > > > 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.

        What we have here is a failure to communicate. I don't know how
to convey an idea you don't seem to understand. I hope I won't have to
keep trying. The idea is very very simple after all.
        Suppose there are 1000 observers. For simplicity, assume each can
be labeled by a brain state which we can number from 1-1000, and that each
sees a different observation, which we can label by the observer number N.
        Consider number 463. He sees an observation with various
characteristics, which we have labeled #463.. There is NOTHING random
about that, not in any way, shape or form, at all. Period. I can't
emphasize that enough.
        Nor does he have any direct evidence to prove that the other
observers exist. But what he can do is guess that they exist based on
Occam's razor, thinking "the world would be simpler if I were one out of
1000 observers".
        Suppose that each observer sees 10 coins. Our observer #463
notices that 9 out of the 10 are tails up, 1 is heads up. He guesses that
most observers see mostly tails up coins. In other words, he guesses that
the effective probability for each coin to be tails up is large.
        To find out if this guess is correct we would "take a survey" of
all the observers. Still nothing random from any point of view.
        Of course, the results of the survey are the same as if the coins
were randomly distributed with the appropriate probabilities. Hence the
term effective probability.

> 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.

        That's BS. They are plainly incompatible since they give
conflicting predictions. They are not just different levels of
description. And I see no reason why invoking QM would change anything.
On the contrary, we already know the physics, what we need for a
measurement theory are precisely things like the ASSA + computationalism.

                         - - - - - - -
              Jacques Mallah (
       Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
            My URL:
Received on Wed Sep 22 1999 - 16:45:59 PDT

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