>
> 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?
>
Both individuals belong to the same class, at least
initially. However, because humans seem to be uncomfortable with the
notion of two bodies having the same identity, we would probably give
differing labels to each instantiation, thereby dividing the class
(and hence set of observer moments). A complication, sure, but an
insurmountable one.
> > 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.
>
Which properties did you have in mind?
> [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.
Emphasize all you like. It sounds like a typical statistician's
procedure for defining a stochastic process.
> 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.
Agregating statistical properties reduces the level of randomness in
the description. In the infinite limit (or thermodynamic limit if you
prefer that term) one should be left with a deterministic system.
> 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.
>
Tell me how they give conflicting predictions? You cannot conclude
from ASSA that an observer will not observe an arbitrarily large age,
unless of course you assume the "random hopping" interpretation, which
you have quite explicitly (and in my opinion quite rightly) ruled
out. ASSA in this case simply has no predictive power over what
histories observers will see. The RSSA, on the other hand will predict
this, provided a number of other (reasonably believable) assumptions
are taken. There's no conflict here. What other predictions are in conflict?
> - - - - - - -
> 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 23 1999 - 10:11:56 PDT