Re: Subjective measure? How does that work?

From: Eric Hawthorne <egh.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:48:49 -0800

Wei Dai wrote:

>On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:41:55AM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
>>Do you think that by choosing a
>>different measure, you could change the actual first-person probabilities of
>>different experiences? Or do you reject the idea of continuity of
>>consciousness and "first-person probabilities" in the first place?
>>
>>
>
>The latter. I came to that conclusion by trying to develop a theory of
>first-person probabilities, failing, and then realizing that it's not
>necessary for decision making. If someone does manage to develop a theory
>that makes sense, maybe I'll change my mind.
>
>No one has tried to answer my other objection to an objective measure,
>which is that since there are so many candidates to choose from, how can
>everyone agree on a single one?
>
>
I think that a notion of measure which is so flexible that there are
infinite numbers of possible measures
to choose from, is a wrong, or non-useful, definition of measure. I
think people have to try harder
to find a stronger and even more objective notion of measure.

I would argue that all of the observers who co-exist should agree that

1. their universe has a very high measure, and
2. their universe generates complex order

They should say "it's overwhelmingly most likely that we're observing a
high-measure universe which generates
complex order."

I think the form of any high-measure universe which can generate complex
order is exceedingly
constrained, because the two constraints (high measure) and (generates
complex order) can only be obtained with
onerous constraints on form of universe (physical law etc).

Eric
Received on Mon Jan 26 2004 - 13:03:49 PST