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

From: Jacques M. Mallah <jqm1584.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:26:49 -0800

On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Russell Standish wrote:

*> > 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').
*

Your 'understanding' is wrong. Of course, the ASSA must be

supplemented by 1) a description of reality and 2) a way such as RM to

derive the measure distribution from that. That usually goes without

saying.

If Y1 and X are characteristics that an observation can have, and

given the measure distribution as a function of all such possible

characteristics via RM, it's easy to find:

p(Y1|X) = p(Y1 and X)/p(X)

That wasn't so hard was it?

The rest of your above paragraph, I don't see the point of at all.

*> 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.
*

Huh? Why should p(not Y1, and X) = 0?

*> 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.
*

That's BS. You do seem to hold to it as an article of faith; all

you QTIers do. I have presented several arguments that demolish it

completely, such as the argument from our observed small ages and such as

Occam's razor.

- - - - - - -

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 Fri Nov 05 1999 - 11:26:53 PST

Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:26:49 -0800

On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Russell Standish wrote:

Your 'understanding' is wrong. Of course, the ASSA must be

supplemented by 1) a description of reality and 2) a way such as RM to

derive the measure distribution from that. That usually goes without

saying.

If Y1 and X are characteristics that an observation can have, and

given the measure distribution as a function of all such possible

characteristics via RM, it's easy to find:

p(Y1|X) = p(Y1 and X)/p(X)

That wasn't so hard was it?

The rest of your above paragraph, I don't see the point of at all.

Huh? Why should p(not Y1, and X) = 0?

That's BS. You do seem to hold to it as an article of faith; all

you QTIers do. I have presented several arguments that demolish it

completely, such as the argument from our observed small ages and such as

Occam's razor.

- - - - - - -

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 Fri Nov 05 1999 - 11:26:53 PST

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