Jacques Mallah wrote:
>
> >From: Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>
> >Jacques Mallah wrote:
> >
> >For many of us, this is a distinct disadvantage, as it is not clear
> >that the reference class of all observer moments is all that well
> >defined. I agree that it can be applied to the set of all human
> >observer moments reasonably unambiguously. If you wish, we can do
> >that, it doesn't change my critique one bit. However, I fail to see >what
> >your issue is with the notion of an individual (tree of observer
> >moments rooted at birth).
>
> Humans, as I said, was just an example. Stop confusing arbritrary
> examples with fundamental distinctions. The only conditional that we can
> not usually get rid of is the fact that we are asking the question in the
> first place. That condition does seem to remove the need for any hard and
> fast distinction between conscious and unconscious computations.
As I have said many times, it is not obvious that the reference class
of all "anthropically aware" observer moments is well defined. I
rather suspect it isn't.
> Your critique? I must have missed that. All you did was make some
> false statements about the ASSA which I corrected.
The critique was that you have the wrong reference class for
addressing questions about age, at least as far as application of the
SSSA is concerned. What false statements? So far you have said
anything about false statements, other than the fact I restricted the
application of the ASSA over individuals, rather than classes of
individuals for comparison purposes. Hardly an important distinction.
> "Individual" - my problem with this is that first, I have yet to see a
> definition. Your "tree" metaphor does little to help as you failed to
> define the nature and characteristics of the connections between
> observer-moments that you imply.
As I said, there is a temporal partial ordering. This implies that for
each point, there is a well defined set of points lying in the future
of that point. If the set is discrete, then this defines a tree
structure. The continuous case is the obvious generalisation
Second, I see no reason to assign any
> fundamental role to such a concept.
Because information processing requires time which imposes the partial
ordering. If you see no reason for this, then please explain how
information processing can take place in the absence of time.
>
> > > >With RSSA,the reference class is the set of all future moments adjacent
> >to a given observer moment. All of this assumes that a temporal partial
> >ordering in fact exists between observer moments.
> > >
> > > I guess the RSSA assumes that. (ASSA doesn't, although I also
> >believe in time.) Your above definition of RSSA is unclear.
> >
> >No, the ASSA doesn't need this, but for purposes of comparison, we
> >need to work with time. I have stated my reasons before why I regard
> >time as essential for observers (and consequently observer moments) to
> >exist. Why is the above definition unclear? For discrete observer
> >moments linked by temporal partial ordering, it is perfectly
> >clear. Taking the continuum limit looks fairly unproblematic at this
> >point in time.
>
> What does "adjacent" mean in this context? Why should one take such a
> reference class??? By "moment", do you mean a moment in time, or an OM? If
> the latter, how do you count identical twins (which may have a common
> origin, e.g. copying)? How does your definition relate to previous
> definitions of the RSSA which are different?
The word adjacent is obvious when used in the discrete context. Are
you concerned about its meaning in the continuum case?
By moment, I do mean an observer-moment.
Identical twins have distinct observer moments (but a common
history). The last observer moment they share is the one just prior to
the copying event.
I believe that all statements I have made describing the RSSA are
equivalent. The differences are only changes in wording to assist
communication. The onus is on you to show that some of my previous
statements about the RSSA are inconsistent with others. If you do
that, then either I recant one of the statements, or I abandon the
whole concept. But first you must show the inconsistency.
>
> > > >With the ASSA, the measure attached to a particular observer moment is
> >related to the complexity of that observer moment, ie how much history is
> >contained within it.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily related to complexity, but with the AUH there is a
> >relation. Definitely not related to the amount of history; that's just
> >depth, not complexity. Grab a Li & Vitanyi if you don't know what I mean.
> >
> >I know exactly what you mean. However, at each "branching" event of
> >the MWI, information/complexity is added to the history because of the
> >stochastic outcomes. Only if the outcomes are fully deterministic is
> >complexity not increased, but depth is.
>
> So? That doesn't justify your "ie".
Of course it does.
> And it's an irrelevant factor,
> because branching doesn't change the total measure summed over the branches.
> Thus it does not modify one's age expectation, for instance.
>
Fair enough. The measure of a 30 yo observer moment might be
exp(- some humongous factor), but there will be exp( some humongous
factor) of them, thus canceling this out.
There is still the problem that the ASSA reference class includes
observer moments with differing ages, which is surely a relevant difference.
> > > >It can also be computed by integrating the
> > > >RSSA values from birth over the history that leads up to that observer
> >moment. Several histories may need to be integrated over in the case of
> >forgotten events.
> > >
> > > An interesting statement on your part. Here, you seem to be saying
> >that the absolute measure does in fact exist.
> >
> >Up to a point. Given an initial condition to the universe (its big
> >bang), then measure of outcomes (aka observer moment) from any history
> >rooted in that initial condition is a well defined "absolute" measure.
> >However, I doubt that an absolute measure exists over the whole
> >Plenitude.
>
> Going back to the evolution thread, in that case with the AUH you
> couldn't predict evolution is more likely for you to have as your origin.
Yes it is. This is precisely the point of the Occam paper.
>
> > > >It would seem to me that when discussing expected self-observed age,
> >the ASSA is the wrong reference class, here age is a relevant variable.
> >However, the ASSA treats all observer moments of a given
> individual throughout its lifetime as equivalent. Surely this is wrong.
> > >
> > > The only thing that's wrong is your understanding of the ASSA and of
> >related matters.
> >
> >Unhelpful comment. Where, exactly, do you think my understanding is wrong?
>
> Where you think ASSA is a reference class, that absolute measure (ASSA)
> is wrong to use to compute expected age, that ASSA singles out
> "individuals", and all the other stuff I try to set you stariaght on.
>
Why does this make any difference? Averaging the ASSA over a class of
individuals such as homo sapiens, makes no difference to just working
with a generic individual of class homo sapiens. The problem of time
being a relevant variable remains.
> - - - - - - -
> 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/
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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 Jul 05 2000 - 18:39:50 PDT