--- Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> If all we know is a wabbit-free current OM, then
> what's the problem? If tghere were a wabbit this OM
> would not contain that particular question -
> WAP again. Or rather, the wabbit would be viewed as
> normal.
> All you're saying is 'why does my normality not
> contain anything abnormal' - a point I made at the
> beginning of this discussion 6 months ago.
I still don't see any connection to the 'observer'
thing.
Anyway, as I've said, I consider two different
hypotheses and apply Bayesian reasoning. This avoids
the question of what 'normal' means.
The two hypotheses I consider are 1) that OMs are
drawn from a uniform measure on the set of possible
OMs, 2) that OMs are drawn from a meaure defined by
the computations implemented by a mathematical system
with a uniform measure on the set of all possible
'physical laws'. The discrete models for these are 1)
the set of all bitstrings subject to some anthropic
constraint, 2) the implementations of anthropic
computations by the set of all TM programs running (or
UD).
=====
- - - - - - -
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!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com
Received on Mon Jun 05 2000 - 13:39:24 PDT