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
