In a message dated 01/18/2000 1:09:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, 

> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>  > >  The RSSA is not another way of viewing the world; it is a
>  > >  category error.
>  > 
>  > I use the RSSA as the basis for calculating what I call the relative 
>  > probability, in this group the first person probability, or, 
>  > the probability conditional on the life of the observer. The ASSA is by 
>  > extension, the assumption for calculating the 3rd person probability.
>  > 
>  > Let us perform a thought experiment.
>  > Imagine that you are the scientist in the Schroedinger cat experiment.
>   Scratch that.  Right now let's stick to the example with Bruno and
>  the 3 cities, because it's better for the current point.
>   Suppose Bruno, in 1999, wants to know if he is more likely to be
>  in Washington or in Moscow during 2001.
>   First of all, that is not a well defined question, because
>  "Bruno" must be defined.  Suppose we define it to mean the set of all
>  Bruno-like observations, where by "Bruno-like" we can assume we know what
>  qualifies.
>   But then the question becomes meaningless, because it is 100%
>  certain that he will be in *both* cities.  A 3rd person would have to
>  agree with that, he is in *both* cities.
>   So let's ask a meaningful question.  Among the set of Bruno-like
>  observations in 2001, what is the effective probability of such an
>  observation being in Moscow?
>   This is just a conditional effective probability so we use the
>  same rule we always use:
>   p(Moscow|Bruno in 2001) = 
>  M(Moscow, Bru. 2001) / [M(Moscow, Bru. 2001) + M(Washington, Bru. 2001)]
>  where M is the measure.
>   So in this case the conditional effective probability of him
>  seeing Moscow at that time is 10%, and in *1999* he knows he should brush
>  up on his English because his future 'selves' will be affected by that.

Fine, you have computed the third person probability. Unfortunately, your 
example does not have the option of having an independent observer, and 
therefore does not illustrate the concept I am trying to communicate.

Please follow and answer my thought experiment the way I posed it, that is 
with an observer who is not threatened with death and a subject who is. It is 
the only way to bring out the concept of relative probability or 1st and 3rd 
person probability.

George Levy

Reply via email to