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

From: Jacques Mallah <jackmallah.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:03:02 -0800 (PST)

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

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:03:02 -0800 (PST)

On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:

let's

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

around in

Well if you've ever taken a limit it should be clear enough.

for

tolerance

win 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

there

shrouded in

is

proceed on

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

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