--- Randall Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jun 28, 2007, at 5:18 PM, Tom McCabe wrote: > > How do you get the "50% chance"? There is a 100% > > chance of a mind waking up who has been uploaded, > and > > also a 100% chance of a mind waking up who hasn't. > > This doesn't violate the laws of probability > because > > these aren't mutually exclusive. Asking which one > "was > > you" is silly, because we're assuming they're > > completely identical at the instant they wake up; > > they're both you. This is apparently something > that > > needs a lot of explaining; consciousness is not a > > conserved quantity. If there was some magicky > > consciousness "stuff" that either was uploaded or > not > > uploaded, then sure, you could talk about a 50% > > probability of the upload being successful. But if > we > > define "successful" as "you wake up uploaded", and > > "failure" as "you wake up not uploaded", then > there is > > a 100% (assuming the process always works > technically) > > probability of success and a 100% probability of > > failure. Both possibilities refer to the *same > > process*, to the exact same series of atoms > getting > > juggled back and forth. I recognize that this is > > really confusing, but it seems to match what would > > happen if you actually tried it. > > Your "100%" is half of the total, which means you've > just relabeled "50%" as "100%", and claiming that it > means something that has to be explained. That > isn't > the case; it's just a label.
"100%" and "50%" are probabilities; they're physical quantities. Saying that event A and event B both have probabilities of 100% doesn't mean that they're mutually exclusive and so we have to renormalize each of their probabilities to 50%; it means that they're both certain to occur. If I have a theory in which n always equals 5, and you respond with an argument that n should equal 6, as long as you're talking about the same n, it's a different theory- not just a relabeling of the old theory. If I argued that Planck's constant was actually zero, I wouldn't simply be "relabeling" 6.63e-34 as 0; I would be claiming that a huge number of experimental results actually pointed to the theories of classical electromagnetism, in contradiction of what everyone else thinks. > In half the cases of an individual (a copy, an > instance, > or a process -- call it whatever you will) waking > up, > the individual will be uploaded. In half of such > cases, > they won't be. Yes, but this isn't what we mean by "probability". Suppose that today there's a 100% chance of rain, and tomorrow there's a 100% chance of snow. In half the instances of precipitation, it's rain, and in the other half, it's snow. Yet the probability of both is still 100%, not 50%. > I assume that you're correct that there's no > "magicky > consciousness stuff", which is why no one should > expect to wake up simultaneously experiencing both > outcomes at the same time. I would expect that even > those who are pattern identity adherents will agree > that each copy will experience only his or her own > existence. Agreed. > -- > Randall Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "Someone needs to invent a Bayesball bat that exists > solely for > smacking people [...] upside the head." -- > Psy-Kosh on reddit.com > > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: > http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=7d7fb4d8
