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

From: Jesse Mazer <lasermazer.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:28:47 -0500

George Levy wrote:

*>
*

*>You assume that you could get your hands on the absolute probability
*

*>distribution. You must assume >when you observe a physical system is that
*

*>you are an observer. The existence of (objective) absolute >reality is
*

*>another assumption that may not be necessary. Assuming the existence of an
*

*>absolute >probability distribution is like assuming the existence of an
*

*>absolute frame of reference in space.
*

No, I don't assume I know the absolute probability distribution to begin

with. As I explained in earlier posts, I assume that there is some sort of

theory that would be able to tell me the conditional probabilities *if* I

already knew the absolute probability distribution, and likewise that this

theory could tell me the absolute probability distribution *if* I already

knew the all the conditional probabilities. But I don't know either one to

begin with--the idea is that the two mutually constrain each other in such a

way as to provide a unique solution to both, like solving a set of N

simultaneous equations with N variables.

Or:

1. Conditional probability of observer-moment A having observer-moment B as

its next experience = some function F of the form F(formal properties of A,

formal properties of B, P(B))

[by 'formal properties' I am suggesting something like the 'similarity'

between the two observer-moments which I talked about earlier, which is why

I think this would need to be based on a theory of consciousness]

2. Absolute probability of observer-moment B = P(B) = some function G of the

form G(the set of conditional probabilities between B and every other

observer-moment)

The idea is that the theory of consciousness could tell me the exact form of

the functions F and G, but the actual values of all the absolute

probabilities and conditional probabilities are unknown. But since each

function depends on the other in this way, it is conceivable they would

mutually constrain each other in such a way that you could solve for all the

absolute probabilities and conditional probabilities, although of course

this is just my own pet theory.

*>The ASSA requires one additional assumption: the existence of an objective
*

*>reality.
*

Yes, but in a way doesn't a belief in an "objective" truth about conditional

probabilities assume this too? A truly subjective approach would be one like

Wei Dai's, where observers can make any assumptions about probabilities that

they like.

*>In my opinion the two approaches are not compatible, but may give very
*

*>similar results when the >obervers are "close" together, where distance
*

*>here is measured as the amount of overlap of life >contingencies.
*

What do you mean by not compatible? Can you think of a hypothetical example

where the RSSA and the ASSA would give two different predictions about what

I should expect to observe, even if the absolute and conditional

probabilities have the property I discussed in my previous post?

Jesse

_________________________________________________________________

There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more.

http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1

Hi Jesse,

Jesse Mazer wrote:

*must* assume when you observe a physical
system is that you are an observer. The existence of (objective)
absolute reality is another assumption that *may not be necessary*.
Assuming the existence of an absolute probability distribution is like
assuming the existence of an absolute frame of reference in space.

George

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:28:47 -0500

George Levy wrote:

No, I don't assume I know the absolute probability distribution to begin

with. As I explained in earlier posts, I assume that there is some sort of

theory that would be able to tell me the conditional probabilities *if* I

already knew the absolute probability distribution, and likewise that this

theory could tell me the absolute probability distribution *if* I already

knew the all the conditional probabilities. But I don't know either one to

begin with--the idea is that the two mutually constrain each other in such a

way as to provide a unique solution to both, like solving a set of N

simultaneous equations with N variables.

Or:

1. Conditional probability of observer-moment A having observer-moment B as

its next experience = some function F of the form F(formal properties of A,

formal properties of B, P(B))

[by 'formal properties' I am suggesting something like the 'similarity'

between the two observer-moments which I talked about earlier, which is why

I think this would need to be based on a theory of consciousness]

2. Absolute probability of observer-moment B = P(B) = some function G of the

form G(the set of conditional probabilities between B and every other

observer-moment)

The idea is that the theory of consciousness could tell me the exact form of

the functions F and G, but the actual values of all the absolute

probabilities and conditional probabilities are unknown. But since each

function depends on the other in this way, it is conceivable they would

mutually constrain each other in such a way that you could solve for all the

absolute probabilities and conditional probabilities, although of course

this is just my own pet theory.

Yes, but in a way doesn't a belief in an "objective" truth about conditional

probabilities assume this too? A truly subjective approach would be one like

Wei Dai's, where observers can make any assumptions about probabilities that

they like.

What do you mean by not compatible? Can you think of a hypothetical example

where the RSSA and the ASSA would give two different predictions about what

I should expect to observe, even if the absolute and conditional

probabilities have the property I discussed in my previous post?

Jesse

_________________________________________________________________

There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more.

http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1

**attached mail follows:**

Jesse Mazer wrote:

By the way, after writing my message the other day about the question of what it means for the RSSA and ASSA to be compatible or incompatible, I thought of another condition that should be met if you want to have both an absolute probability distribution on observer-moments and a conditional one from any one observer-moment to another. Suppose I pick an observer-moment B from the set of all observer-moments according to the following procedure:You assume that you could get your hands on the absolute probability distribution. You

1. First, randomly select an observer-moment A from the set of all observer-moments, using the absolute probability distribution.

2. Then, select a "next" observer-moment B to follow A from the set of all observer-moments, using the conditional probability distribution from A to all others.

The ASSA requires one additional assumption: the existence of an objective reality. In my opinion the two approaches are not compatible, but may give very similar results when the obervers are "close" together, where distance here is measured as the amount of overlap of life contingencies.

What will be the probability of getting a particular observer-moment for your B if you use this procedure? I would say that in order for the RSSA and ASSA to be compatible, it should always be the *same* probability as that of getting that particular observer-moment if you just use the absolute probability distribution alone. If this wasn't true, if the two probability distributions differed, then I don't see how you could justify using one or the other in the ASSA

George

Received on Wed Feb 04 2004 - 17:32:20 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:09 PST
*