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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:48:58 -0700 (PDT)

--- GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:

*> jackmallah.domain.name.hidden writes:
*

*> > OK. The advantages of my approach are
*

*> > 1) It does not require any special definition
*

*> of identity, while your
*

*> > approach seems to give one a fundamental role.
*

*> >
*

*> > 2) In principle, it allows all kinds of
*

*> (statistical) retrodictions.
*

*> > Your approach seems to only allow a few kinds.
*

*> >
*

*> > 3) It is unclear how you deal with time based
*

*> on your previous and current statements. In my
*

*> approach it is clear that each observer-moment has
*

*> > some measure, and a set of related observer
*

*> moments can be used for a 'person'
*

*> > if desired, so that the person's total measure is
*

*> the sum of that of his constituent observer-
*

*> moments. This clearly rules out QTI.
*

*> >
*

*> > 4) In the MWI of QM the measure of an observer
*

*> in a 'branch' is defined.
*

*> > This is proportional to
*

*> > dM(total)/ d tau [where dtau ~ dt * clock speed]
*

*> > in my approach.
*

*> > In your approach it must be divided by an
*

*> identity-dependent factor
*

*> > resulting in possible near-zombies.
*

*> >
*

*> 1) True. I do require definition of identity or more
*

*> precisely of the self.
*

*> However this requirement is absolutely trivial.
*

Then state the precise definition.

*> a) First, no matter how the self is defined, (i.e.,
*

*> what boundaries you draw
*

*> around it) the normalized measure for the self is
*

*> always unity.
*

*> Normalized Measure = M(Self) / M(Self)
*

*> Which is nice and very egalitarian. We all have the
*

*> same measure.
*

Then why don't people similar to us, but who see

white rabbits, have the same measure?

*> b) Second, the assumption of the self is absolutely
*

*> essential no matter what
*

*> method (yours or mine) is used. We MUST start with
*

*> the assumption "I think."
*

*> Otherwise it's not even worth thinking about nature
*

*> or anything.
*

Observer-moments exist. At least one I can vouch

for; the rest I must extropolate.

*> 2) I don't understand. Maybe you should come up with
*

*> an example.
*

Ok. Suppose there are two possible kinds of

people: those that are (at least as far as they can

tell) physically the product of a Darwinian evolution

process, and those that just came into being due to

random fluctuations. In my approach, given the laws

of (AUH or whatever) I can in principle predict that

the former is more 'probable' than the latter. But

for you, everyone has the same measure, so you can't.

*> 3)
*

I already explained this to you: cardinality isn't

the issue. Just take a limit in the right way.

*> 4) I don't understand. Are you trying to calculate
*

*> the output measure in a
*

*> branch, given the total input measure? What are tau
*

*> and t? I can't comment on zombies.
*

No, just the contribution of each branch to the

total measure of some defined set of observer moments.

t is time, and tau is brain-computer proper time.

If you simulate a brain on a Pentium, it gives rise to

more measure per unit time than the same algorithm on

a 8086.

*> With my method, you must distinguish between first
*

*> person and third person
*

*> observations. Third person observations match
*

*> classical physics. First person
*

*> observations do not. White rabbits do appear
*

*> especially if they are essential
*

*> in maintaining the existence of the observer. In our
*

*> case, for example, the
*

*> Big Bang which is definitely a first person event.
*

Sounds crazy.

With my method, there is no such distinction.

There's a measure distribution. White rabbits appear

only with very small effective probability.

"Maintaining an observer" is undefined until

"observer" is defined.

=====

- - - - - - -

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.

http://im.yahoo.com

Received on Fri Apr 07 2000 - 14:53:39 PDT

Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:48:58 -0700 (PDT)

--- GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:

Then state the precise definition.

Then why don't people similar to us, but who see

white rabbits, have the same measure?

Observer-moments exist. At least one I can vouch

for; the rest I must extropolate.

Ok. Suppose there are two possible kinds of

people: those that are (at least as far as they can

tell) physically the product of a Darwinian evolution

process, and those that just came into being due to

random fluctuations. In my approach, given the laws

of (AUH or whatever) I can in principle predict that

the former is more 'probable' than the latter. But

for you, everyone has the same measure, so you can't.

I already explained this to you: cardinality isn't

the issue. Just take a limit in the right way.

No, just the contribution of each branch to the

total measure of some defined set of observer moments.

t is time, and tau is brain-computer proper time.

If you simulate a brain on a Pentium, it gives rise to

more measure per unit time than the same algorithm on

a 8086.

Sounds crazy.

With my method, there is no such distinction.

There's a measure distribution. White rabbits appear

only with very small effective probability.

"Maintaining an observer" is undefined until

"observer" is defined.

=====

- - - - - - -

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.

http://im.yahoo.com

Received on Fri Apr 07 2000 - 14:53:39 PDT

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