Re: briefly wading back re: BB's and measure

From: Jack Mallah <>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:51:52 -0800 (PST)

--- On Sat, 2/7/09, Quentin Anciaux <> wrote:
> 2009/2/7 Jack Mallah <>
> > 1. Initially, before evolution occurred, a typical Boltzmann brain (BB) had about the same measure as a brain which was like what we consider a normal person's (an atypical BB).
> > 2. The typical BB's all together vastly outnumbered the atypical ones, so they had much more total measure.
> > 3. We are assuming here that a person's measure can't change as a function of time.
> > 4. Therefore the initial measure advantage of the typical BB's would hold for all time.
> You are here explicitely assuming ASSA, meaning that there exists an absolute measure over all OM... which seems to me dubious. Your argument here is not valid for relative continuation (RSSA).

Hi. In the above, I was describing the consequences of #3, the assumption that a person's measure can't change over time. That assumption is certainly not what people have been calling the "ASSA" - obviously, I believe that measure does change as a function of time. Rather, #3 is my attempt to put what you call the "RSSA" in well-defined terms so that its consequences can be explored.

> > Instead I covered the Bayesian issues in my sections on the Reflection Argument and Theory Confirmation.
> >
> What measure then are you talking about ? Bayesian probabilities are relative, it is non-sense to talk about absolute measure.

I don't understand your comment. The sections of my paper that I mentioned explain how to use what I call "effective probabilities" in certain situations. If there is a problem with those procedures that you would like to point out, that would make it impossible to use them, you'd have to be a lot more specific.

> > > He goes on to mention rather briefly in passing his doomsday style
> > > argument against QI, but not in detail.
> >
> > I think the argument is presented in full. What part is missing?
> What happen to your "you" ?

Do you mean "why don't you reach the super-old ages"? The number of super-old "copies of you" is much less than for normal ages. This is equivalent to "most copies of you die off first". Which is equivalent to "most people die off first". It is irrelevant whether the people are different, or similar enough to be called "copies".

The You you know (no quotes around it this time) is just one copy among the "you" ones that are similar to you.

In other words, perhaps too compactly said for people to appreciate, "your" measure is reduced.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Mon Feb 09 2009 - 13:52:08 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:15 PST