- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:12:42 +1100 (EST)

*>
*

*> On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Russell Standish wrote:
*

*> > > On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Russell Standish wrote:
*

*> > > [JM wrote] [&BTW I am getting tired of RS omitting the attribution]
*

*> >
*

*> > ^^^ Blame my email software. I almost always leave the .signatures in
*

*> > to make it obvious who I'm responding to.
*

*>
*

*> Since your software is bad, you should add it manually.
*

*>
*

*> > > It is obvious that p(Y1&X) = p(Y1&Z), because in all instances in
*

*> >
*

*> > It is not obvious, for the same reason that p(Y1&X) = p(Y2&X) is not obvious.
*

*> > If QTI is true, then it is clearly not true. Don't assume what you're
*

*> > trying to prove.
*

*>
*

*> Perhaps I should have been a little more clear. I am discussing
*

*> the ASSA, not trying to prove it but to show that it is self consistent.
*

*> You are right in the sense that I left something out. I am
*

*> assuming a reasonable measure distribution based on the physical
*

*> situation. For example, the measure could be proprtional to the number of
*

*> implementations of a computation, as I like to assume.
*

*> It is also possible to assume an unreasonable measure
*

*> distribution, like the RSSA. This of course would require new, strange
*

*> and complicated laws of psycho-physics.
*

*> So what I am really doing is showing that (ASSA + reasonable
*

*> measure (RM)) is self consistent. However, the way we have been using the
*

*> term ASSA, RM has almost always been assumed.
*

*> In any case it is always true that some way of calculating the
*

*> measure distribution is needed. Your claim was that the RSSA is needed.
*

*> My example shows that RM does the job.
*

*>
*

My understanding is that ASSA cannot assign a probability to p(Y1|X)

or p(Y2|Z). Your reasonable measure presumably gives values for p(Y1|X'),

p(Y2|Z'), p(X) and p(Z). Now p(Y1)=p(Y1|X)p(X)+p(Y1|X')(1-p(X)) - it

seems to me likely that p(Y1|X)p(X) is negligible (although clearly

there are circumstances where it is not (eg when there is only an

"Adam" and an "Eve")) compared with the other term, so that p(Y1)

\approx p(Y1|X').

The real problem, and I have long pointed this out, is that absolute

measure is completely irrelevant to what one observes about

oneself. QTI is the assumption that p(Y1|X)=p(Y2|Z)=1, under

appropriate definitions of what X and Z mean.

I don't think your measure argument is wrong, or that ASSA is wrong,

its just that it doesn't disprove QTI. I don't adhere to QTI as an

article of faith, however, it seems more likely to be the truth than

not. If someone can come up with a good counter-argument to QTI, then

of course I'll modify my beliefs. I have tried to falsify QTI, but not

succeeded so far.

*> - - - - - - -
*

*> 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 Nov 04 1999 - 16:12:53 PST

Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:12:42 +1100 (EST)

My understanding is that ASSA cannot assign a probability to p(Y1|X)

or p(Y2|Z). Your reasonable measure presumably gives values for p(Y1|X'),

p(Y2|Z'), p(X) and p(Z). Now p(Y1)=p(Y1|X)p(X)+p(Y1|X')(1-p(X)) - it

seems to me likely that p(Y1|X)p(X) is negligible (although clearly

there are circumstances where it is not (eg when there is only an

"Adam" and an "Eve")) compared with the other term, so that p(Y1)

\approx p(Y1|X').

The real problem, and I have long pointed this out, is that absolute

measure is completely irrelevant to what one observes about

oneself. QTI is the assumption that p(Y1|X)=p(Y2|Z)=1, under

appropriate definitions of what X and Z mean.

I don't think your measure argument is wrong, or that ASSA is wrong,

its just that it doesn't disprove QTI. I don't adhere to QTI as an

article of faith, however, it seems more likely to be the truth than

not. If someone can come up with a good counter-argument to QTI, then

of course I'll modify my beliefs. I have tried to falsify QTI, but not

succeeded so far.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Nov 04 1999 - 16:12:53 PST

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