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

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 01:05:43 EST

In a message dated 03/22/2000 5:08:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,

jackmallah.domain.name.hidden writes:

*> Renormalizing, one must choose > arbritrarily
*

*> a reference unit Y; then the absolute measure of X can be stated as
*

*> M(X)/M(Y).
*

OK. Both of us take a ratio. At least we have this in common.

Normalized Measure = M(X)/M(Y).

The difference between us is that:

1) I constrain M(Y) to be the absolute measure of the observer himself such

that the normalized measure of the observer (as observed by him) is precisely

one. All his other observations are similarly normalized according to his own

measure.

2) You believe that M(Y) can be (more or less) arbitrarily chosen.

*> 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
*

*>
*

*> 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.
*

OK. I grant you the latitude that our research group implies: uncritically

discussing uncertain issues for the purpose of furthering our understanding.

I accept the fact that your method of computing measure is so-to-speak "under

construction." Please note that with my method your condition #2 "the result

could be

consistent with our observations" holds for the observer himself.

BTW I checked the site gave.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000315075657.htm

Interesting. This paper is definitely not porcine effluent. It outlines some

research in pig farming with much more down-to-earth and lucrative potential

than our theorizing in this group.

George

Received on Thu Mar 23 2000 - 22:10:00 PST

Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 01:05:43 EST

In a message dated 03/22/2000 5:08:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,

jackmallah.domain.name.hidden writes:

OK. Both of us take a ratio. At least we have this in common.

Normalized Measure = M(X)/M(Y).

The difference between us is that:

1) I constrain M(Y) to be the absolute measure of the observer himself such

that the normalized measure of the observer (as observed by him) is precisely

one. All his other observations are similarly normalized according to his own

measure.

2) You believe that M(Y) can be (more or less) arbitrarily chosen.

OK. I grant you the latitude that our research group implies: uncritically

discussing uncertain issues for the purpose of furthering our understanding.

I accept the fact that your method of computing measure is so-to-speak "under

construction." Please note that with my method your condition #2 "the result

could be

consistent with our observations" holds for the observer himself.

BTW I checked the site gave.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000315075657.htm

Interesting. This paper is definitely not porcine effluent. It outlines some

research in pig farming with much more down-to-earth and lucrative potential

than our theorizing in this group.

George

Received on Thu Mar 23 2000 - 22:10:00 PST

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