Jacques Mallah wrote:
>
> --- Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden> 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
> what?
As has been previously mentioned, the RSSA is simply measure
conditional upon the observer being who it/he/she is. Principally, we
have been applying it to what observer moments one should expect to
see next (in a histories view of the world), but it can equally be
applied to any observed aspect of the environment, including records
of past historical events. The ASSA seems to deny that the concept
"next observer moment" makes sense, or if it does make sense, then
there is a rather ludicrous "hopping" between observer moments.
If you want to be pedantic about the histories bit, then "records of
past historical event" can be replaced by "aspects of the current
observer moment that might be interpreted as records of past
historical events". Either way, the RSSA or the ASSA can be used
interchangably.
>
> > 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
> RSSA.
I would not be so sure about this!
>
> > (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.
>
What rot! Bayesian reasoning underpins both systems. The real
difference between them is whether one accepts the concept of history.
> =====
> - - - - - - -
> 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!?
> Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
> http://invites.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 Wed May 31 2000 - 18:36:56 PDT