`I attempted something like your water tank model of the multiverse with the`

`game I describe here: http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m6608.html. My`

`conclusion was that the relative measure is important in determining the`

`successor OM (I think this is what you call the RSSA, although I prefer to`

`spell it out when the idea is at all problematic), but the absolute measure`

`makes no difference from the observer's point of view (is this a rejection`

`of the ASSA?).`

`One can imagine God shuffling all the instantiations of all the OM's`

`associated with a particular observer and pulling out an OM at random, which`

`will then more probably be an OM with higher absolute measure. But this is`

`not how it works from the observer's point of view, contemplating his place`

`in the multiverse. For a start, it is impossible to know what the absolute`

`measure of an OM is, because it makes no first person difference. If it did,`

`i.e. if multiple instantiations of an OM could somehow be distinguished,`

`then by definition it is not the one OM.`

`Even if the above objection were overcome, and the absolute measure could be`

`taken into account, it is difficult to see how it could possibly have the`

`effect claimed by critics of QTI. The life history of each observer can be`

`traced through the multiverse from birth to infinity as a single, continuous`

`thread. The observer experiences only one OM at a time, regardless of what`

`the absolute (or for that matter the relative) measure is. Suppose the`

`observer encounters on Monday a lode of very high measure, let's say a`

`trillion times what it was on Sunday or will again be on Tuesday. What`

`effect is this going to have? Will he somehow be stuck in Monday? Will time`

`slow down for him? Will there be any difference between him and the regular,`

`low measure people around him? One answer I have been given to this question`

`is that he will be much more likely to find himself alive on Monday than on`

`another day - but what can this possibly mean, given that Monday will only`

`last 24 hrs?`

`The game I have cited above allows the parameter analogous to the absolute`

`measure to change, and it makes no difference to the progress of the player.`

`I suggest that this is the only sensible answer.`

--Stathis Papaioannou Jesse Mazer writes:

Subjectively, there is *always* a one to one correspondence between anearlier and a later version, even though from a third person perspectivethe relationship may appear to be one to many, many to many, or many toone. This is in part why reasoning as if observer moments can be sampledrandomly from the set of all observer moments gives the wrong answer.Can you explain more why you think this one-to-one relationship impliesit's incorrect to apply the self-sampling assumption to observer-moments?As I said in the "Request for a glossary of acronyms" thread (athttp://tinyurl.com/5265d ), I am inclined to believe a final theory ofeverything would allow us to use both the ASSA (the theory would assigneach observer-moment an absolute probability, and we could reason as if ourcurrent OM was randomly selected from the set of all possible OMs, weightedby their absolute probability) and the RSSA (for each OM, the theory wouldgive a conditional probability that the observer's subsequent experiencewould be any other possible OM). If you're suggesting the two areincompatible, there's no need for them to be. Consider the followinganalogy--we have a bunch of tanks of water, and each tank is constantlypumping a certain amount of its own water to a bunch of other tanks, andhaving water pumped into it from other tanks. The ratio between the ratesthat a given tank is pumping water into two other tanks corresponds to theratio between the probabilities that a given observer-moment will besucceeded by one of two other possible OMs--if you imagine individual watermolecules as observers, then the ratio between rates water is going to thetwo tanks will be the same as the ratio between the probabilities that agiven molecule in the current tank will subsequently find itself in one ofthose two tanks. Meanwhile, the total amount of water in a tank wouldcorrespond to the absolute probability of a given OM--at any given time, ifyou randomly select a single water molecule from the collection of allmolecules in all tanks, the amount of water in a tank is proportional tothe probability your randomly-selected molecule will be in that tank.Now, for most ways of arranging this system, the total amount of water indifferent tanks will be changing over time. In terms of the analogy, thiswould be like imposing some sort of universal time-coordinate on the wholemultiverse and saying the absolute probability of finding yourselfexperiencing a given OM changes with time, which seems pretty implausibleto me. But if the system is balanced in such a way that, for each tank, thetotal rate that water is being pumped out is equal to the total rate thatwater is being pumped in, then the system as a whole will be in a kind ofequilibrium, with no variation in the amount of water in any tank overtime. So in terms of OMs, this suggests a constraint on the relationshipbetween the absolute probabilities and the conditional probabilities, andthis constraint (together with some constraints imposed by a 'theory ofconsciousness' of some kind) might actually help us find a uniqueself-consistent way to assign both sets of probabilities, an idea Ielaborated on in the "Request for a glossary of acronyms" thread.In terms of the QTI, accepting both the ASSA and RSSA seems to imply therewould be no point at which our stream of consciousness would end, but theASSA also implies that it's unlikely a typical observer-moment has memoriesof being extremely old, so it seems we'd have to accept some sort of"immortality with amnesia"--maybe as I approach death, my stream ofconsciousness will move into simpler and simpler OMs, and then eventuallystart climbing back up the ladder of complexity into the OMs of a differentperson who has no memory of my life. Or maybe the advanced transhumanintelligences of the future periodically like to wipe most of theirmemories and experience what it was like to be a human-level intelligence,so that at the end of my life my memories will be reintigrated with thoseof this larger intelligence (maybe this replaying of a life would be anecessary part of the merging of two distinct transhuman minds, somethingwhich transhuman intelligences would probably want to do if at allpossible). There are probably other creative ways to have immortality (asimplied by the RSSA) be compatible with the idea that my current OM is a"typical" one (as implied by the ASSA), too.Jesse

_________________________________________________________________

`Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!`

`http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/`