Re: Natural selection (spinoff from "History-less observer moments")

From: Jacques Mallah <>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 14:23:16 -0700 (PDT)

--- Russell Standish <> wrote:
> 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.

    What RSSA values? The history takes place largely
prior to birth. The RSSA does not give values.

> 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.

    Prior to birth, there is no measure. Measure of
> 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 "RSSA values" can't be used because there
isn't any way to compare *different* observers in the
> (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).

    Why would there be an absolute limit? Unlikely.
    BTW, don't think that just because we're
discussing on this thread, you're off the hook with
respect to my point on the other thread that Bayesian
reasoning is the same as the ASSA.

- - - - - - -
               Jacques Mallah (
         Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
         My URL:

Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
Received on Fri May 26 2000 - 14:25:48 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST