On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> I presume you're not the connoisseur I imagined you were. Oh well,
let's
> return to boring american gastronomy.
You're such a copious producer of animal excrement, it's no wonder
you're more intimate with it than I am. Your pig shit stinks, so you
should read
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000315075657.htm
> We are going very deep into philosophical arguments and are going
around in
> circles. In addition, I did not understand how you use your so called
> regularization.
Well if you've ever taken a limit it should be clear enough.
> I wish I could say the following:
>
> "Let's cut the Gordian knot and be brief. Give me the numerical value
for
> your own (absolute) measure. Just one number please, with whatever
tolerance
> and units as would be appropriate. If you come up with the number you
win the
> argument. If you don't, I win. This would put an end to the
discussion."
You must know by now - I've said it enough times - that the actual
(integer) value is infinite. Renormalizing, one must choose
arbritrarily
a reference unit Y; then the absolute measure of X can be stated as
M(X)/M(Y). It thus becomes a quantity with dimensions, like mass and
length are. I can't state my mass in absolute terms without referring
to
some unit, but I certainly have some particular mass. ('Dimensional
transmutation' is well known in QFT.)
I can estimate my effective probability, but only by assuming that
the laws of physics we see dominate the measure distribution. A
reasonable assumption, perhaps. Also, the term 'me' would have to be
precisely defined first - e.g. my current observer-moment, or the set
of
all such in "Jack Mallah"'s life; etc. If the latter, and in THB
(Typical
Human Being units), I guess my absolute measure would be approximately
in the range .2 - 1.5
> However, you are engaging yourself on a third road. You claim that
there
> exist a way to compute absolute measure but this way is currently
shrouded in
> secrecy. You admit yourself that "the right way to do it for the full
> plenitude is unknown." Your whole argument rests on something which
is
> unknown or even impossible to do. How can this rational discussion
proceed on
> such an article of faith?
This whole mailing list is based on the hypotheses 1) there exists
some way to get predictions out of the AUH and 2) the result could be
consistent with our observations. I don't apologize for the fact that
no
one knows how to do it yet; that's what research is all about.
- - - - - - -
Jacques Mallah (jackmallah.domain.name.hidden)
Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
My URL:
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
Received on Wed Mar 22 2000 - 17:09:53 PST