2009/2/9 Jack Mallah <jackmal...@yahoo.com> > > --- On Sat, 2/7/09, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2009/2/7 Jack Mallah <jackmal...@yahoo.com> > > > 1. Initially, before evolution occurred, a typical Boltzmann brain (BB) > had about the same measure as a brain which was like what we consider a > normal person's (an atypical BB). > > > 2. The typical BB's all together vastly outnumbered the atypical ones, > so they had much more total measure. > > > 3. We are assuming here that a person's measure can't change as a > function of time. > > > 4. Therefore the initial measure advantage of the typical BB's would > hold for all time. > > > > You are here explicitely assuming ASSA, meaning that there exists an > absolute measure over all OM... which seems to me dubious. Your argument > here is not valid for relative continuation (RSSA). > > Hi. In the above, I was describing the consequences of #3, the assumption > that a person's measure can't change over time. That assumption is > certainly not what people have been calling the "ASSA" - obviously, I > believe that measure does change as a function of time. Rather, #3 is my > attempt to put what you call the "RSSA" in well-defined terms so that its > consequences can be explored. > > > > Instead I covered the Bayesian issues in my sections on the Reflection > Argument and Theory Confirmation. > > > > > What measure then are you talking about ? Bayesian probabilities are > relative, it is non-sense to talk about absolute measure. > > I don't understand your comment. The sections of my paper that I mentioned > explain how to use what I call "effective probabilities" in certain > situations. If there is a problem with those procedures that you would like > to point out, that would make it impossible to use them, you'd have to be a > lot more specific. > > > > > He goes on to mention rather briefly in passing his doomsday style > > > > argument against QI, but not in detail. > > > > > > I think the argument is presented in full. What part is missing? > > > > What happen to your "you" ? > > Do you mean "why don't you reach the super-old ages"? The number of > super-old "copies of you" is much less than for normal ages. This is > equivalent to "most copies of you die off first". Which is equivalent to > "most people die off first". It is irrelevant whether the people are > different, or similar enough to be called "copies". >
I find it dubious for a moment to have a measure by itself and that from moment to moment this measure decrease. I could accept that two moments relative to each other have a certain probability to be the successor of each other and it means something. Also I still don't understand how I could be 30 years old and not 4, there are a lot more OM of 4 than 30... it is the argument you use for 1000 years old, I don't see why it can hold for 30 ? Also even if absolute measure had sense, do you mean that the measure of a 1000 years old OM is strictly zero (not infinitesimal, simply and strictly null) ? If it is what you mean, could you prove it ? > > The You you know (no quotes around it this time) is just one copy among the > "you" ones that are similar to you. > > In other words, perhaps too compactly said for people to appreciate, "your" > measure is reduced. > > My measure relative to what ? Regards, Quentin > > > > > > > > > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
