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

From: Jacques Mallah <>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:48:48 EDT

--- Russell Standish <> wrote:
>Jacques Mallah wrote:
> > The conflict is obvious. Given M(x|y) and > M(x'|y'), where x,x'
>are characteristics and y,y' are
> > "observers", does not tell you M(x)/M(x').
>Part of the problem here is the absence of well
>defined meaning for M(x). My best guess for what meaning
>might be attached to it is M(x|z), where z is a
>hypothetical observer of the big bang (beginning
>of time), setting the boundary condition for the
>Schroedinger equation describing our universe. Then M(x)/M(x') is really
>which is scarcely problematic.

    It is clear that we don't think the same way. M(x) is simply the total
measure of observations with the characteristic x. M(x|y), on the other
hand, is undefined since "observer" is undefined. I don't understand what
you mean by M(x|z).
    For the sake of others who may have forgotten, I'll describe again what
is involved. The problem is to compare the measaure of 1) x = "you are the
product of Darwinian evolution" and 2) x' = "you are the direct result of
(quantum or thermal) 'random fluctuations'". Presumably, x and x' would be
seen by different 'observers' if that was defined.

>Of course, there is nothing unique about (our) Big
>Bang, but I really don't see how you can compare outcomes from two
>different initial conditions of the SE.

    And here I thought you were an everything-ist.
    As you know, I'd sum over all implementations in the multi-multiverse to
find a measure.

> > > > The real difference is that you refuse, by
> > > > some trick of doublethink, to apply Bayesian
> > > > reasoning to age and across different observers.
> > > > > I seem to remember spending several weeks in
> > > fierce debate with you doing precisely this.
> > > That's what's known as a false memory, since it
> > never happenned. We did argue, but you never were
> > willing to do the above. In fact your argument was
> > that doing so was supposed to be wrong somehow.
>Given that we appear to have a disagreement about
>exactly what happened, how about we let the rest of the
>group decide exactly what it was about!

    Then you should have posted the above to the list, no doubt an
    The problem is that most of the active posters are under delusions
similar to yours. Those who believe in (e.g.) QTI must be more likely than
sane people to join the everything-list and to post.

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

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
Received on Thu Jun 15 2000 - 10:55:11 PDT

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