Russell Standish wrote:

## Advertising

On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 07:35:42PM -0400, Jesse Mazer wrote: > Russell Standish wrote: > > > > >You are arguing that it is possible to have an absolute measure for > >each observer moment, as well as a relative measure on the transitions > >between observer moments. Of course this is correct. > > > >However, the ASSA and the RSSA are more than that. The SS stands for > >self sampling, ie the principle that one should reason as though one's > >own observer moment were sampled from the A or the R measure > >respectively. With the RSSA, only the birth moment is sampled > >according to an absolute measure, so it is an elaboration of the > >SSA. I'm not sure how compatible the ASSA is with the SSA. > > > >The ASSA and RSSA are incompatible principles, even if both absolute > >and relative measures are compatible. >> Well, perhaps the problem is that we don't have definite agreement onthis> list about how these acronyms are defined--for example, Hal Finney gave> different definitions on the original "Request for a glossary ofacronyms"> thread, in his post at http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4778.html-->> "ASSA - The Absolute Self-Sampling Assumption, which says that youshould> consider your next observer-moment to be randomly sampled from among all > observer-moments in the universe. > > RSSA - The Relative Self-Sampling Assumption, which says that you should > consider your next observer-moment to be randomly sampled from among all> observer-moments which come immediately after your currentobserver-moment> and belong to the same observer." > How does this differ? The only difference I see is that the word "measure" is not mentioned explicitly, however random sampling implies sampling according to some measure. Sometimes uniform measure is implied by random sampling, but I can't see how Hal Finney might have thought that, as the measure is so patently nonuniform.

`Hal didn't say anything about only sampling the birth moment randomly`

`according to the absolute measure, or imply it as far as I understood him.`

> > And as I said in my response to that post at> http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4782.html , I would prefer todefine> the ASSA in terms of reasoning as if your *current* observer-moment is > randomly sampled from the set of all observer-moments, weighted by each > observer-moment's absolute probability. > > Jesse > I can't see that changing "next" to "current" makes any difference to the meaning, except if there is no "next" OM. If you are comparing the two - eg perhaps asserting a compatibility, then there must be a "next" OM. This is pedantry for pedantry sake.

`No, I'm not saying there is no "next" OM, my point was that the two methods`

`can give different probabilities for my next OM--for example, a Jesse Mazer`

`OM and a Russell Standish OM might have about equal absolute measure, but`

`given my current OM, a Jesse Mazer OM would have much higher relative`

`measure.`

It does not change the fact that the RSSA and the ASSA are fundamentally incompatible principles.

`Could you explain why you think they're fundamentally incompatible? In what`

`type of situation would they lead to contradictory conclusions, for example?`

`In terms of my water-tank analogy, if you happen to be riding on a water`

`molecule, there doesn't seem to be any incompatibility between 1) reasoning`

`as if your water molecule was randomly selected from the set of all`

`molecules, so the probability your molecule will be in a given tank is`

`proportional to the amount of water in that tank (absolute probability), and`

`2) assuming that the next tank you will find yourself in after this one is`

`randomly sampled from all the tanks which your current tank is pumping water`

`into, with each possible next tank weighted by the rate that the current`

`tank is pumping water into that tank (conditional probability).`

Jesse