On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Russell Standish wrote: > > Given the measure distribution of observation-moments, as a > > function on observables (such as Y1 and X), > > p(Y1|X) = p(Y1 and X) / p(X) > > Not so hard, was it? > > [Note that here X was the observation of being Jack Mallah, and > > Y1 was basically the observation of being old. See previous posts on > > this thread if you want exact details of Y1; nothing else about it is > > relevent here I think.] > > ASSA doesn't give p(Y1 and X) either.
Obviously, and as I've repeatedly said, some prescription for the measure distribution is also needed. That is true even to just get p(X). > > Huh? Why should p(not Y1, and X) = 0 ? Especially since my > > current observations are (not Y1, and X)!!! > > Your current observations are [sic] p(Y3|X), where Y3 = Jacques Mallah's > is observed to be young. Y3 is not equivalent to (not Y1). Just because > you see yourself young does not preclude seeing yourself old at a > later date! Here your misunderstanding is clearly exposed. The way I've defined p(A), it is the effective probability of an observation-moment with the property 'A'. Definitions of identity, of 'me' or 'not me', are irrelevant to finding p(A). By definition, if my current observation is A, and A and B are such that it is not possible for the same observation-moment to have both, then I observe (not B). If you want to talk about the probability that, using some definition of identity that ties together many observation moments, "I" will eventually observe Y1 - that will depend on the definition of identity. It is NOT what I have been talking about, nor do I wish to talk about it until you understand the much more basic concept of the measure of an observer-moment. - - - - - - - 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/