Re: Request for a glossary of acronyms

From: George Levy <glevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:27:53 -0800

Jesse Mazer wrote:

> 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.


You say that the values of the absolute and conditional probabilities
are unknown. In my opinion, I have a very good idea of what their values
are.

The absolute probability of any given observer moment is infinitesimal
given the extremely large, possibly infinite, number of observer moments
states in the plenitude, and also given the much larger non-observer
moment states in the plenitude. Non-conscious observers states greatly
outnumber conscious observer states. The only way to talk meaningfully
about absolute probability is to "normalize" it, effectively converting
it to a conditional probability.

The conditional probability of any given observer moment A transitioning
to observer moment B given that he is in observer B is one.

The conditional probability of any given observer moment A transitioning
to observer moment B given that he is in observer A is infinitesimal.
There are many more ways for our physical state to transition (randomly
decay) into a non-conscious observer moments than to transition to a
conscious observer moment. Any state in the plenitude could be a target
of this transition.

>
>
>> 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.


Who says truth has to be objective? or even if there is such a thing an
objective truth? And I don't agree with Wei. Ultimately the assumptions
that an observer makes about probabilities must be grounded in his own
status as observer. Assuming the observer is the only assumption that
needs to be made.

Imho there can be an emergent reality purely based on the observer
states without the need for any objective entity.
The observer himself is an emergent phenomenon reflected on / reflecting
the observer himself.


George
Received on Wed Feb 04 2004 - 22:30:15 PST