RE: tautology
Niclas Thisell wrote: >How could the definition of measure be difficult with quantum mechanics? >Obviously, we simply define the measure of a world (a point in >infinite-dimensional Fock-space) to be the absolute square of the >wave-function. In my opinion, the concept of splitting and merging only >serves to confuse (as indicated by your discussion :-). OK. May be the measure (which is simple in QM, I agree) is simple also in relativistic QM (I have some doubt, here, though). You should also realise that the discussion, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't take QM for granted. I'm trying to derive the QM-measure from the hypothesis of computationalism in philosophy of mind. Tell me if you accept the Many World Interpretation of QM. In that case, if you don't accept splitting, I guess you disagree with the Q.19 of Price's Everett FAQ http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#detect Worlds would never split but would differentiate, if there are many worlds and non splitting. Perhaps you don't believe in the MWI ? Sincerely, Bruno Bruno MARCHALPhone : +32 (0)2 650 27 11 Universite Libre Fax : +32 (0)2 650 27 15 de Bruxelles Avenue F.D. Roosevelt, 50 IRIDIA, CP 194/6 B-1050 BRUSSELSEmail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Belgium URL : http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal
Re: tautology
In a message dated 12/05/1999 8:57:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > There is an obvious normalisation problem with the usual model of > branching histories in MWI (I see from your signature you at least > accept that!). Since the total number of histories (belonging to say a > particular observer) is some exponentially growing function of time, > and extends indefinitely into the future, the total measure of an > observer is unnormalisable, without some renormalisation applied at > each "timestep" (which seems rather arbitrary - unless you've got some > better ideas). Your measure argument, which is a variation of the > Leslie-Carter Doomsday argument, implicitly relies on a normalised > measure distribution of observer moments. I seem to remember this > normalisation problem was discussed earlier this year, but I'm not > sure (without rereading large tracts of the archives) > > Now, with RSSA, this normalisation problem is not an issue, as only > the relative measures between successive time steps is important, not > the overall measure. > I agree that there is a problem with the conventional concept of the MWI which support an asymmetrical view of time. According to this concept, branching generates an ever increasing number of worlds and identities. ID splitting is allowed but ID "merging" is not. Yet I find much more satisfying to believe in a time symmetrical world in which spitting and merging occur with equal frequency. Just as an aside I would like to go back to Bruno's amoeba analogy in which he illustrated the feeling one has in a splitting Many Worlds with the question: "how does it feel to be an amoeba after it splits?" Using the same analogy to illustrate merging worlds, I could ask "how does it feel to be an egg after it's fertilized?" (reminds me of one of Woody Allen's movies. :-)) George Levy
Re: tautology
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Russell Standish wrote: > > Given the measure distribution of observation-moments, as a > > function on observables (such as Y1 and X), > > p(Y1|X) = p(Y1 and X) / p(X) > > Not so hard, was it? > > [Note that here X was the observation of being Jack Mallah, and > > Y1 was basically the observation of being old. See previous posts on > > this thread if you want exact details of Y1; nothing else about it is > > relevent here I think.] > > ASSA doesn't give p(Y1 and X) either. Obviously, and as I've repeatedly said, some prescription for the measure distribution is also needed. That is true even to just get p(X). > > Huh? Why should p(not Y1, and X) = 0 ? Especially since my > > current observations are (not Y1, and X)!!! > > Your current observations are [sic] p(Y3|X), where Y3 = Jacques Mallah's > is observed to be young. Y3 is not equivalent to (not Y1). Just because > you see yourself young does not preclude seeing yourself old at a > later date! Here your misunderstanding is clearly exposed. The way I've defined p(A), it is the effective probability of an observation-moment with the property 'A'. Definitions of identity, of 'me' or 'not me', are irrelevant to finding p(A). By definition, if my current observation is A, and A and B are such that it is not possible for the same observation-moment to have both, then I observe (not B). If you want to talk about the probability that, using some definition of identity that ties together many observation moments, "I" will eventually observe Y1 - that will depend on the definition of identity. It is NOT what I have been talking about, nor do I wish to talk about it until you understand the much more basic concept of the measure of an observer-moment. - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate "I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/
Re: tautology
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Russell Standish wrote: > > [JM wrote] [&BTW I am getting tired of RS omitting the attribution] > > ^^^ Blame my email software. I almost always leave the .signatures in > to make it obvious who I'm responding to. Since your software is bad, you should add it manually. > > It is obvious that p(Y1&X) = p(Y1&Z), because in all instances in > > It is not obvious, for the same reason that p(Y1&X) = p(Y2&X) is not obvious. > If QTI is true, then it is clearly not true. Don't assume what you're > trying to prove. Perhaps I should have been a little more clear. I am discussing the ASSA, not trying to prove it but to show that it is self consistent. You are right in the sense that I left something out. I am assuming a reasonable measure distribution based on the physical situation. For example, the measure could be proprtional to the number of implementations of a computation, as I like to assume. It is also possible to assume an unreasonable measure distribution, like the RSSA. This of course would require new, strange and complicated laws of psycho-physics. So what I am really doing is showing that (ASSA + reasonable measure (RM)) is self consistent. However, the way we have been using the term ASSA, RM has almost always been assumed. In any case it is always true that some way of calculating the measure distribution is needed. Your claim was that the RSSA is needed. My example shows that RM does the job. - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate "I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/
Re: tautology
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Russell Standish wrote: [JM wrote] [&BTW I am getting tired of RS omitting the attribution] > > That's total BS. > > I'll review, although I've said it so many times, how effective > > probabilities work in the ASSA. You can take this as a definition of > > ASSA, so you can NOT deny that this is how things would work if the ASSA > > is true. The only thing you could try, is to claim that the ASSA is > > false. > > The effective probability of an observation with characteristic > > 'X' is (measure of observations with 'X') / (total measure). > > The conditional effective probability that an observation has > > characteristic Y, given that it has characteristic X, is > > p(Y|X) = (measure of observations with X and with Y) / (measure with X). > > OK, these definitions are true in general. Let's apply them to > > the situation in question. > > 'X' = being Jack Mallah and seeing an age for Joe Shmoe and for > > Jack Mallah, and seeing that Joe also sees both ages and sees that Jack > > sees both ages. > > I shall take X = being Jack Mallah. The rest is irrelevant. > > > Suppose that objectively (e.g. to a 3rd party) Jack and Joe have > > their ages drawn from the same type of distribution. (i.e. they are the > > same species). > > Case 1: 'Y1' = the age seen for Joe is large. > > Case 2: 'Y2' = the age seen for Jack is large. > > Clearly P(Y1|X) = P(Y2|X). > > Sorry, not so clear. It is true by symmetry that p(Y1)=p(Y2). > > p(Y1|X) = p(Y1&X)/p(X) > p(Y2|X) = p(Y2&X)/p(X) > > Why do you assume p(Y1&X) = p(Y2&X)? I can see no reason. They > certainly aren't symmetrical. About all one can say from symmetry is > p(Y1&X) = p(Y2&Z), where Z = being Joe Schmoe. I must disrespectfully disagree. It is obvious that p(Y1&X) = p(Y1&Z), because in all instances in which there is an observation with Y1 & X, there is observation by Joe Shmoe with Y1 & Z, of equal measure. That's why I added the extra conditions, to make it real obvious. (Since there are no near-zombies in the ASSA. They are both there (in that branch/universe), both with human brains, so they get the same measure.) So p(Y1&X) = p(Y2&Z) = p(Y1&Z). OK we have shown it for Joe, Jack's case works the same way: p(Y1&X) = p(Y2&X). - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate "I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/
Re: tautology
On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Russell Standish wrote: > The measure of Jack Mallah is irrelevant to this situation. The > probability of Jack Mallah seeing Joe Schmoe with a large age is > proportional to Joe Schmoe's measure - because - Joe Schmoe is > independent of Jack Mallah. However, Jack Mallah is clearly not > independent of Jack Mallah, and predictions of the probability of Jack > Mallah seeing a Jack Mallah with large age cannot be made with the > existing assumptions of ASSA. The claim is that RSSA has the > additional assumptions required. That's total BS. I'll review, although I've said it so many times, how effective probabilities work in the ASSA. You can take this as a definition of ASSA, so you can NOT deny that this is how things would work if the ASSA is true. The only thing you could try, is to claim that the ASSA is false. The effective probability of an observation with characteristic 'X' is (measure of observations with 'X') / (total measure). The conditional effective probability that an observation has characteristic Y, given that it has characteristic X, is p(Y|X) = (measure of observations with X and with Y) / (measure with X). OK, these definitions are true in general. Let's apply them to the situation in question. 'X' = being Jack Mallah and seeing an age for Joe Shmoe and for Jack Mallah, and seeing that Joe also sees both ages and sees that Jack sees both ages. Suppose that objectively (e.g. to a 3rd party) Jack and Joe have their ages drawn from the same type of distribution. (i.e. they are the same species). Case 1: 'Y1' = the age seen for Joe is large. Case 2: 'Y2' = the age seen for Jack is large. Clearly P(Y1|X) = P(Y2|X). - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate "I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/
Re: tautology
> > On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Russell Standish wrote: > > > Your above comments make no sense to me. Perhaps you should > > > attempt to clarify them. I will say that you seem to have missed the > > > point of the Bayesian analysis. It is useful because the ASSA predicts > > > that one is unlikely to observe a large age for oneself. The fact that > > > the ASSA does so is supremely obvious from the fact that at large ages the > > > measure is smaller. > > > > It is _not_ supremely obvious. The only thing that is obvious is what > > it say about _external_ reality - i.e. it predicts one is unlikely to > > see a large age for someone else. It says absolutely nothing about > > what you observe about yourself. > > If I look at Joe Shmoe's age, why is it (with the ASSA) unlikely > for me to see a large age? Because the measure of Jack Mallahs that see > that Joe Shmoe has a large age is small. > If I look at Jack Mallah's age, why is it (with the ASSA) unlikely > for me to see a large age? Because the measure of Jack Mallahs that see > that Jack Mallah has a large age is small. > What's the difference? The measure of Jack Mallah is irrelevant to this situation. The probability of Jack Mallah seeing Joe Schmoe with a large age is proportional to Joe Schmoe's measure - because - Joe Schmoe is independent of Jack Mallah. However, Jack Mallah is clearly not independent of Jack Mallah, and predictions of the probability of Jack Mallah seeing a Jack Mallah with large age cannot be made with the existing assumptions of ASSA. The claim is that RSSA has the additional assumptions required. > > - - - - - - - > Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate > "I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum > My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/ > > Dr. Russell StandishDirector High Performance Computing Support Unit, University of NSW Phone 9385 6967 Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 6965 Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
Re: tautology
Chris Maloney wrote: >This harkens back to a thread I started some time ago about our universe >being the one, or among the ones, that admit the most SASs. Clearly the >number of observer-moments among the human race is vast, if you assume the >MWI. Most people replied that they thought it was of the order aleph-0 >(countable) or C (the continuum). If you assume comp, and that any two >implementations of the same Turing machine are identical (which I would) >then the number must be aleph-0, right? Not right. There are reasons with comp to quantify on the infinite histories of machines. So with comp the answer should be C. Bruno
Re: tautology
Pending the arrival of a much talked about faq, your best bet is probably to do a search for the first occurence of such terms in the archive at http://www.escribe.com/science/theory Alastair - Original Message - From: Andrew Lias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Jacques M. Mallah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 24 September 1999 23:04 Subject: Re: tautology > I'm afraid that I'm late to the discussion. Would it be to late to ask what > the acronyms ASSA and RSSA stand for and how they are differentiated from > one another? > > Thanks. > > --- > Andrew Lias > >
Re: tautology
In a message dated 99-09-16 18:03:47 EDT, Jacques Mallah writes: >> George Levy wrote >> [a bunch of crap] >> >> Just as I predicted. Thank you for the very thorough and constructive critique and for your amazing ability to predict the future. Your comments represents as significant a contribution to our discussion as your idea of ASSA. George Levy
Re: tautology
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Gilles HENRI wrote: > A 21:12 -0700 15/09/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit: > >Closely tied to the self selection assumption is the Doomsday argument, > >which says that we are probably about halfway along in the lifetime of > >the human race, hence (if you count by observers or observer-moments) > >the human race should go extinct within a few thousand years. This is a prediction of the ASSA. Remember, though, that it just sets up a prior Bayesian probability distribution which is easily modified by additional observations. Gilles wrote: > maybe [] prediction should read: there is probably no alien race > which outnumbers the sum of all other races? Yes (with the ASSA). Of course it is only probable, not certain. - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate "I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/
Re: tautology
In a message dated 99-09-13 16:05:02 EDT, Jacques Mallah writes: > No, if you did that you would miss the boat. The boat that allows >predictions of stuff like the observed laws of physics. >> One way out for Jacques is to assume that humans are the only sentient >> creatures in the whole universe... actually the whole plenitude. > Why did you even write such bullshit and try to tar me with it? Jacques, what you call bullshit is just the logical extension of ASSA, and I am tarring your crackpot ideas, not you. If ASSA predicts that the probability of being Chinese is high because there are more Chinese, then it is also true that the probability of being non-chinese is higher because there are more non-Chinese. ASSA also predicts that the probability of being a sentient Centaurian is higher because there are more Centaurian, or maybe the reverse is true: there are more non-Centaurian, therefore we should be non-Centaurian. The predictive ability of ASSA is zero, zilch, nada. If you deal with well defined sets then there is no problem. For example, If you try to compute the probability that a sentient being is chinese given the fact that this being is human you may come up with a number like 1/3. However, (for most of us in this group) this is not a Self Sampling process. However, if you apply the Self Sampling condition, for example, of being caucasian, then the probability of being chinese is zero, and the probability of being caucasian is one. The Self Sampling process is one in which a frame of reference is being defined. This frame of reference is simply the condition of being the self. It also leads to the RSSA For this reason, I assert that the Absolute Self Sampling (ASS) Assumption is a contradiction in terms. It cannot be both Absolute and Self Sampling. That leaves us with the Relative Self Sampling Assumption. Jacques, you yourself admit to an element of relativity: >A piece of evidence is surprising if it would cause a big shift in > our Bayesian probability distribution. This is relative, of course. George Levy
Re: tautology
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Russell Standish wrote: [JM wrote] > > Obviously you don't understand. With the ASSA, it is always > > possible to find the conditional probability of an observation given a > > suitable condition. Choosing a condition and asking a question about it > > changes nothing about the real situation. > > The difference between the ASSA and RSSA really becomes apparent > > when the ASSA predicts nonconservation of measure as a function of time. > > Obviously this does not happen in most everyday, nonfatal situations. > > Unless you've changed your spots Jacques, you are starting to become > incoherent. ASSA is not defined with reference to time, so therefore > cannot make any statements about it. The RSSA is. What are you talking about? I really don't know. The ASSA states, and always has, that the effective probability of an observer moment is proportional to it measure. Time doesn't enter this definition, in the same way that seeing a color doesn't enter; the general rule needs no modification to be applied in either case. It was super-obvious in my post that when I talked about a function of time above I was referring to the fact that the measure of observer moments along a computational continuation varies with time. The RSSA, as far as I can see, is not defined at all. I have tried to extropolate the descriptions you guys give into some kind of coherent position for me to attack, but it seems to me that you often contradict yourselves while denying any such contradictions. The role of time in the RSSA is a case in point. BTW, while I'm posting I might as well ask, if you guys are so darn sure consciousness is continuous and that it somehow means it cannot end, how come you seem to have no problem with birth? It seems to me that your arguments would apply equally in that direction. How come you have no trouble picturing a boundary for it in the past? I'm sure you'll come up with some BS answer but this once again shows the foolishness of your position. - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate "I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/
Re: tautology
On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > > Then maybe I misunderstood you. A tautology is a term with redundant > > > > > parts, ie it is equivalent to some subset of itself. I took your > > > > > statement that "ASSA is a tautology" to mean that ASSA is equivalent > > > > > to SSA (symbolically ASSA <=> SSA). I directly contradict this in my > > > > > first sentence. > > > > > > > > > [JM wrote] > > > > From WordNet (r) 1.6 (wn) > > > > tautology n 1: (in logic) a statement that is necessarily true; "the > > > > statement `he is brave or he is not brave' is a tautology" 2: useless > > > > repetition; "to say that something is `adequate enough' is a tautology" > > > > > > > > I was not aware of meaning 2 of the word, while I have > > > > frequently encountered the word used for meaning 1. > > > > > > > The definition I gave and the one you quoted are equivalent. > > > > I quoted two very different definitions. The one you gave is > > equivalent to #2. The one I meant in my 'zombie wives' post was #1. > > Sorry, I missed the second definition. It is merely a colloquial > generalisation of definition 1, and is definitely the one I was using. Generalization? That's BS. They are totally different. Example of def. 1: A or not A Example of def. 2: A and A - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate "I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/
