>
>
> I am rewriting my reply to the previous post in this thread
> because the one I sent last Friday for some reason did not get
> distributed to the list, and I didn't save a copy.
>
> From: Russell Standish
> >> 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 'understanding' is wrong. (Of course, I mean 'effective
> probability' here.)
> Given the measure distribution of observation-moments, as a
> function on observables (such as Y1 and X),
> p(Y1|X) = p(Y1 and X) / p(X)
> Not so hard, was it?
> [Note that here X was the observation of being Jack Mallah, and
> Y1 was basically the observation of being old. See previous posts on
> this thread if you want exact details of Y1; nothing else about it is
> relevent here I think.]
ASSA doesn't give p(Y1 and X) either. The only way I know of calculating p(Y1
and X) is via the Bayes formula p(Y1 and X) = p(Y1|X)p(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.
>
> Huh? Why should p(not Y1, and X) = 0 ? Especially since my
> current observations are (not Y1, and X)!!!
>
Your current observations are p(Y3|X), where Y3 = Jacques Mallah's is
observed to be young. Y3 is not equivalent to (not Y1). Just because
you see yourself young does not preclude seeing yourself old at a
later date!
> > 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. I have presented arguments that demolish the QTI such
> as the measure argument and Occam's razor. QTI believers seem to take it
I forgotten your Occam's razor argument. Where is it in the thread
archive? As stated before, your measure argument is so full of holes,
one can drive a freight train through it.
> on faith to me; they have presented no arguments to support their case, as
> far as I can tell, that make any sense. If you understood the measure
> argument, you would see, as I explained in my last post "Re: On begin very
> old" and in other posts, that it rules out any type of immortality.
>
> - - - - - - -
> 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 Sun Nov 14 1999 - 14:40:07 PST