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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 17:13:35 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Russell Standish wrote:

*> > 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.
*

Obviously, and as I've repeatedly said, some prescription for the

measure distribution is also needed. That is true even to just get p(X).

*> > Huh? Why should p(not Y1, and X) = 0 ? Especially since my
*

*> > current observations are (not Y1, and X)!!!
*

*>
*

*> Your current observations are [sic] 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!
*

Here your misunderstanding is clearly exposed. The way I've

defined p(A), it is the effective probability of an observation-moment

with the property 'A'.

Definitions of identity, of 'me' or 'not me', are irrelevant to

finding p(A). By definition, if my current observation is A, and A and B

are such that it is not possible for the same observation-moment to have

both, then I observe (not B).

If you want to talk about the probability that, using some

definition of identity that ties together many observation moments, "I"

will eventually observe Y1 - that will depend on the definition of

identity. It is NOT what I have been talking about, nor do I wish to talk

about it until you understand the much more basic concept of the measure

of an observer-moment.

- - - - - - -

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 Mon Nov 22 1999 - 14:52:58 PST

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 17:13:35 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Russell Standish wrote:

Obviously, and as I've repeatedly said, some prescription for the

measure distribution is also needed. That is true even to just get p(X).

Here your misunderstanding is clearly exposed. The way I've

defined p(A), it is the effective probability of an observation-moment

with the property 'A'.

Definitions of identity, of 'me' or 'not me', are irrelevant to

finding p(A). By definition, if my current observation is A, and A and B

are such that it is not possible for the same observation-moment to have

both, then I observe (not B).

If you want to talk about the probability that, using some

definition of identity that ties together many observation moments, "I"

will eventually observe Y1 - that will depend on the definition of

identity. It is NOT what I have been talking about, nor do I wish to talk

about it until you understand the much more basic concept of the measure

of an observer-moment.

- - - - - - -

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 Mon Nov 22 1999 - 14:52:58 PST

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