- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Charles Goodwin <cgoodwin.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:45:42 +1200

*> -----Original Message-----
*

*> From: Jacques Mallah [mailto:jackmallah.domain.name.hidden]
*

*>
*

*> Nope! It's just that with FIN, your expected age
*

*> diverges. If you want
*

*> to say that's impossible, fine with me. FIN is logically
*

*> impossible for a
*

*> sane person to believe!
*

*> But there's one exception: your brain can only hold a
*

*> limited amount of
*

*> information. So it's possible to be too old to remember how
*

*> old you are.
*

*> *Only if you are that old, do you have a right to not reject
*

*> FIN on these
*

*> grounds.* Are you that old?
*

*> (Of course, you must still reject it on other grounds!)
*

Yeah, that's one of my objections to QTI. Although perhaps add-on memory chips will become available one day :-)

(SNIP)

*> >That's OK so far. And it turns out correctly for most cases (i.e.
*

*> >99.99999999(etc)% of observers WILL turn out to have ages of
*

*> infinity (if
*

*> >QTI etc)). But an infinitesimal fraction won't - including
*

*> everyone you
*

*> >observe around you (the multiverse is very very very (keep
*

*> typing "very"
*

*> >til doomsday) big! (assuming MWI)).
*

*>
*

*> Right. Do you think you are in an infinitesimal
*

*> fraction, or in a
*

*> typical fraction?
*

Infinitesimal, if QTI is correct, otherwise fairly typical. Assuming QTI is correct and ignoring any other objections to it, it's

*possible* for me to be in an infinitesimal fraction - in fact it's necessary.

*> > > In the same way, the SSA helps you guess things. It's
*

*> just a procedure
*

*> >to follow which usually helps the people that use it to make correct
*

*> >guesses.
*

*> >
*

*> >It doesn't seem to help in this case though. I don't need to
*

*> guess my age,
*

*> >it's a given.
*

*>
*

*> Maybe the following example will help.
*

*> Suppose there are two possibilities:
*

*> 1. 90% of people see A, 10% see B
*

*> 2. 10% of people see A, 90% see B
*

*>
*

*> You see A. But you want to know whether #1 or #2 is
*

*> true. A priori,
*

*> you feel that they are equally likely to be true. Should you
*

*> throw up your
*

*> hands simply because both #1 and #2 are both consistent with your
*

*> observation? No. So use Bayes' theorem as follows:
*

*>
*

*> p(1|A) = [p(A|1) p_0(1)] / [p(A|1) p_0(1) + p(A|2) p_0(2)]
*

*> = [ (.9) (.5) ] / [ (.9) (.5) + (.1) (.5) ] = .9
*

*>
*

*> So you now think #1 is 90% likely to be true, if you use
*

*> this procedure.
*

*> So you will guess #1. OK, lets try and check to see if
*

*> this procedure is
*

*> good.
*

*> If #1 is true then 90% of people who use the procedure guess
*

*> #1 (right).
*

*> If #2 is true then 10% of people who use the procedure guess
*

*> #1 (wrong).
*

*> Well I'd say that's pretty good, and also the best you can do.
*

*> I gotta go.
*

I agree, but according to QTI I *must* pass through a phase when I see the unlikely bits, no matter how unlikely it is that a

typical moment will fall into that phase. Even if I later spend 99.9999999999999999999....% of my observer moments seeing the stars

going out one by one, there still has to be that starting point!

Maybe we should resume this disussion in 1,000,000 years - or not, as the case may be.

Charles

Received on Mon Sep 03 2001 - 14:43:15 PDT

Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:45:42 +1200

Yeah, that's one of my objections to QTI. Although perhaps add-on memory chips will become available one day :-)

(SNIP)

Infinitesimal, if QTI is correct, otherwise fairly typical. Assuming QTI is correct and ignoring any other objections to it, it's

*possible* for me to be in an infinitesimal fraction - in fact it's necessary.

I agree, but according to QTI I *must* pass through a phase when I see the unlikely bits, no matter how unlikely it is that a

typical moment will fall into that phase. Even if I later spend 99.9999999999999999999....% of my observer moments seeing the stars

going out one by one, there still has to be that starting point!

Maybe we should resume this disussion in 1,000,000 years - or not, as the case may be.

Charles

Received on Mon Sep 03 2001 - 14:43:15 PDT

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