On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 12:06:42PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> OK, new thought experiement. ;)
>
> Barring a global disaster which wiped out all of the humanity or its
> descendents, there would exist massively more observers in the future
> than currently exist.
> But you (as an observ
Youness, your initial remark touches a valid point. I would go a bit
further, even further than Hal's reply which still addressed the topical map
within the Jason-idea - and deeper into Jason's well crafted position and
considerations in computer science thinking.
*
Remember, when the human mind wa
Jason, let me split your ideas into two problems.
The first problem is to understand why and how observers interpret
data in a meaningful way despite of the fact that the data has no
unique meaning within itself.
On 26 Sep., 21:09, Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A given piece of data can rep
On Sep 27, 2:15 pm, "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes. So my point is, even though the subjective probability computed by ASSA
> is intuitively appealing, we end up ignoring it, so why bother? We can
> always make the right choices by thinking directly about measures of
> outcomes an
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 05:24:33PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > Of course. But I also put Darwinian evolution up there with that
> > (variation/selection is a powerful theory).
> >
>
>
> This to vague for me. I have no (big) conceptual problem with Darwinian
> Evolution, but this i
On 26 Sep., 14:39, "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ASSA implies that just before you answer, you should think that you have
> 0.91 probability of being in the universe with "0" up. Does that mean you
> should guess "yes"? Well, I wouldn't. If I was in that situation, I'd think
> "If I answe
6 matches
Mail list logo
