OK - but in this case the measure used in the SSA is simply the
integrated RSSA values over the history of events. Furthermore, since
knowledge of some of the events is lost, there will need to be a
further summation of the possibilties in those cases.
One can compare two histories in this way - at least up until the
birth of the observer, there will be no observer dependent component
to the measure.
The RSSA only really starts to "bite" after one experiences self-age
greater than circa 100 years, so I would be surprised if there was any
significant/detectable difference that RSSA would make at our
respective ages. Obviously, ASSA values can equally well be used for
this purpose.
The same would not be true if one was a million years old. Then
observer dependent RSSA effects would start to dominate evolution. I
have speculated that the million year old observer will see evolution
stop - but I really don't know. I'd compare notes about what happens
when we get to a million years old. Unfortunately, we'd be in
different branches of the Multiverse by then - so we'd need to work
out some way of communicating between these branches :)
(Before you leap out of the chair frothing at the mouth, I have no way
of knowing whether there is some absolute maximum age to human
lifetimes. As far as I'm concerned, QTI currently predicts that we'd
get to age 150-200 with reasonable confidence, but beyond that is pure
speculation).
Cheers
Jacques Mallah wrote:
>
> --- Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> > Jacques Mallah wrote:
> > > No, the RSSA is incapable of comparing the
> > > measure of two different people because it denies
> > > that measure means anything except "relative" to
> > > one person. The only type of "third person"
> > > events the RSSA can be used for, are really just
> > > events seen by the "same person" but which don't
> > > happen to affect that person's survival.
> >
> > Not true. Multiple observers sharing the same
> > history will see the same RSSA measure (or effective
> > probability) for third person events
> > (independent of any of the observers). Their only
> > disagreement is over measure of events that affect
> > one or other of the observers -
> > particularly if that event results in the death of
> > one of the observers.
>
> Which doesn't address what I said! This is not a
> case of multiple observers, sharing the same history,
> comparing the effective probabilities of "third
> person" events. It's case of multple observers, not
> sharing the same history, estimating the effective
> probability of being the sort of person who is *born
> into* various types of biological/historical situations.
>
> =====
> - - - - - - -
> 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!?
> Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com/
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Room 2075, Red Centre
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tue May 23 2000 - 18:03:21 PDT