In a message dated 01/18/2000 1:09:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> 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, 
equivalently, 
>  
>  > 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