On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Russell Standish wrote:
> >     I use the terms SSA, ASSA, RSSA only because others on the list
> > insist on using them.  In my opinion the 'ASSA' is a tautology and not
> > an assumption, while the 'RSSA' is an error.
> ASSA <!=> SSA. ASSA makes explicit the sample set over which SSA is
> applied. So does RSSA (the sample set being different to the ASSA
> case). A third possibility is SSA of birth rank, as used in Leslie
> Carter's arguments.

        Ok.  Nothing in your paragraph contradicts what I said.

> > > Under relative SSA, there is time. Each observer moment is connected
> > > to a range (presumably infinite) of future observer moments. The
> > 
> >     Here's where the position of the QS camp appears to diverge from
> > other positions of QSers, notably Higgo James, who of course endorses both
> > seemingly contradictory positions.
> Sorry - what are the seemingly contradictory position? Whether one
> assumes ASSA or RSSA?  (these are contradictory positions, and
> give rise to different predictions about QTI)

        No, the role of time.  Higgo James has often stated his belief
that moments in time are really not connected.

> >     No.  If every observer sees all future moments, then the amount of
> Whoa there! Noone said anything about every observer seeing all future
> moments. Where did this piece of nonsense come from?

        It's the QTI claim together with the claim that an observer is
extended over all times at which he exists.  Nonsense, yes.


>Thank you Jacques for your detailed reply to my post asking about your 
>concept of measure.

>It seems to me that you have made the assumption that the MWI only deals
>with "splitting" of the observer and not the "merging". This leads to the 
>conclusion that under the Relative SSA the measure keeps increasing and we 
>find ourselves to be very old in the most probable worlds. 
>However, if we include merging of the observer, then we could end up with a 
>Relative SSA in which measure is conserved. 

        Nope.  The measure is conserved in the RSSA leading to the
infinite expected value for the age.

>This said, I find it difficult to talk about increase and decrease and making 
>comparisons of the measure when the quantity in question is infinite. 

        Then take a calculus course.  I consider the question a non-issue,
and I just spelled it out explicitly to try to get past it.  Some limiting
proceedure is required.  Same as always when dealing with infinities in

                         - - - - - - -
              Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
       Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
            My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/

Reply via email to