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

From: Russell Standish <>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:00:23 +1000 (EST)

Jacques Mallah wrote:
> 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.

Not at all. The question is: "Given you are a conscious observer, compare
the measures of x and x'". The observer is the same in both cases and all
we know about the observer is the property of consciousness.

In any case, the issue is solved quite handsomely with the Universal
Prior. I also believe my solution to the White Rabbit problem works
(as outlined in my Occam paper).

By contrast, the Multiverse paper does not deal with this issue at
all. It is set in the Multiverse, not the Plenitude, and discusses
implications this viewpoint has for Darwinian evolution.

> >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 problem is that this sum does not converge, because the
information content of the summed quantity must be zero.

> Then you should have posted the above to the list, no doubt an
> oversight.
> 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.

Firstly, I don't believe in QTI, as I have repeatedly stated in the
past, however I have an open mind on the possibility. What I do
believe is that your "Measure" argument against QTI fails. I won't go
into laborious detail here why, as the ground has been covered before,
but it relates to us being on the opposite sides of the RSSA-ASSA /
history vs moment divide.

Without a proper theory of consciousness, either side of the debate is
equally consistent, just mutually contradictory choices of
axioms. Perhaps a consistent theory of consciousness would help here,
but I'm not holding my breath.

> - - - - - - -
> 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

Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Room 2075, Red Centre
Received on Thu Jun 15 2000 - 19:08:15 PDT

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