Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 20:17 03/02/04 -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Personally, I would prefer to assign a deeper significance to the notion
of absolute probability, since for me the fact that I find myself to be a
human rather than one of the vastly more numerous but less intelligent
other animal
Jesse Mazer wrote:
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >
> >This means that the relative measure is completely fixed by the
absolute
> >measure. Also the relative measure is no longer defined when
probabilities
> >are not conserved (e.g. when the observer may not survive an experiment
as
> >in quantum suicide
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: Request for a glossary of acronyms
> Saibal Mitra wrote:
> >
> >This means that the relative measure is completely fixed
At 20:17 03/02/04 -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Personally, I would prefer to assign a deeper significance to the notion
of absolute probability, since for me the fact that I find myself to be a
human rather than one of the vastly more numerous but less intelligent
other animals seems like an obser
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
Saibal Mitra wrote:
This means that the relative measure is completely fixed by the absolute
measure. Also the relative measure is no longer defined when probabilities
are not conserved (e.g. when the observer may not survive an experiment as
in quantum suicide). I don't see why you need a theory o
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 exis
ver all S' compatible with S yields 1.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Request for a glossary of acronyms
> By the way, after writing my messag
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
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Thank you Jesse for your clear answer. Your comparison
of your use of both ASSA and RSSA with Google ranking system
has been quite useful.
This does not mean I am totally convince because ASSA raises the
problem of the basic frame: I don't think there is any sense to compare
th
too much on mathematical logic,
but the similarity between 1-histories *has* been derived technically in
the part
of the theory which is the most counter-intuitive ... mmh I will try soon ...
Bruno
At 00:02 01/02/04 -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Request for a glossary of acronyms
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:11:39 +0100
Here is an interesting post by Jesse. Curiously I have not been able to
find it
in the archive, but luckily I find it in my computer memory.
I
Here is an interesting post by Jesse. Curiously I have not been able to find it
in the archive, but luckily I find it in my computer memory.
Is that normal? I will try again later.
Jesse's TOE pet is very similar to the type of TOE compatible with the comp
hyp, I guess everyone can see that.
Jesse
Hal Finney wrote:
Jesse Mazer writes:
> In your definition of the ASSA, why do you define it in terms of your
next
> observer moment?
The ASSA and the RSSA were historically defined as competing views.
I am not 100% sure that I have the ASSA right, in that it doesn't seem
too different from the S
My message 6/11 to Alberto Gómez seems not to have gone through.
I send it again. Apology for those who did receive it.
B.
At 09:24 06/11/03 +0100, Alberto Gómez wrote:
For me there is no bigger step between to wonder
> > Also, what about a weighted version of the ASSA? I believe other animals
are
> > conscious and thus would qualify as observers/observer-moments, which
would
> > suggest I am extraordinarily lucky to find myself as an observer-moment
of
> > what seems like the most intelligent species on the p
At 16:54 05/11/03 -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Hal Finney wrote:
One correction, in the descriptions below I should have said multiverse
for all of them instead of universe. The distinction between the SSA
and the SSSA is not multiverse vs universe, it is observers vs observer-
moments. I'll send
At 09:24 06/11/03 +0100, Alberto Gómez wrote:
For me there is no bigger step between to wonder about how conscience
arises from a universe made by atoms in a Newtonian universe, particles
in a quantum universe, quarks in a quantum relativistic universe and
finally, superstring/n-branes in a 11 di
> Hal,
>
> Waht about a definition of Observer-Moment?
> That would surely help me...
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Joao
I was mostly sticking to acronyms, otherwise it becomes a FAQ. Doing
observer-moment also requires defining observer. Here is a try at it:
Observer - A subsystem of the multiverse with qu
Here are some more:
QM - Quantum Mechanics, our best current theory for the physics
of the small.
GR - General Relativity, our best current theory for the physics
of the large.
TM - Turing Machine, a formal model of computation.
UTM - Universal Turing Machine, a type of Turing Machine that can
Hal,
Waht about a definition of Observer-Moment?
That would surely help me...
Thanks,
-Joao
Hal Finney wrote:
> Jesse Mazer writes:
> > In your definition of the ASSA, why do you define it in terms of your next
> > observer moment?
>
> The ASSA and the RSSA were historically defined as comp
Jesse Mazer writes:
> In your definition of the ASSA, why do you define it in terms of your next
> observer moment?
The ASSA and the RSSA were historically defined as competing views.
I am not 100% sure that I have the ASSA right, in that it doesn't seem
too different from the SSSA. (BTW I have
But one might also have to take into account the absolute measure on
all-observer moments that I suggest above, so that if there is a very low
absolute probability of a brain that can suggest a future observer-moment
which is very similar to my current one
Sorry, meant to say "a very low absolut
By the way, for anyone who wants to learn more about the whole issue of the
"self-sampling assumption" in general, I recommend this website:
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/
The author of the site, Nick Bostrom, (who I think is a member of this list,
or used to be) also wrote a whole book on
Hal Finney wrote:
One correction, in the descriptions below I should have said multiverse
for all of them instead of universe. The distinction between the SSA
and the SSSA is not multiverse vs universe, it is observers vs observer-
moments. I'll send out an updated copy when I get some more link
One correction, in the descriptions below I should have said multiverse
for all of them instead of universe. The distinction between the SSA
and the SSSA is not multiverse vs universe, it is observers vs observer-
moments. I'll send out an updated copy when I get some more links and/or
correction
Here is a start at a glossary:
UD - The Universal Dovetailer, a hypothetical system for
running all possible computer programs. See UDA.
UDA - The Universal Dovetailer Argument of Bruno Marchal, which
concludes that we must derive the laws of physics from computer science.
See http://www.escribe
[This is a repost, I didn't see it come out before. I have a sinking
feeling that the first URL contains the magic letters s - c - r - i -
b - e and that is triggering some kind of filter! If so that is
rather inconvenient given that this is one of the main list archive
sites. Hopefully this hea
saying.
Norman
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Hawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 9:47 AM
Subject: Request for a glossary of acronyms
> UD, ASSA, Level 1 world, RSSA, Pilot Wave, ... M
UD, ASSA, Level 1 world, RSSA, Pilot Wave, ... MW,
Is anyone willing to post a glossary of the acronyms used on this list,
preferably with a very short
summary of each, and a reference to the full papers that best explicate
them? The glossary could
also include the major contending theories (wit
30 matches
Mail list logo
