On Jan 25, 3:50 am, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:54:32PM -0500, John M wrote:
> >   PS I still would appreciate to be directed to a short text explaining the 
> > essence of ASSA (RSSA?). JIt is in my book. Here is the relevant excerpt:
> \section[ASSA vs RSSA]{Absolute vs Relative Self Sampl\-ing Assumption}
> In the course of a lengthy, and at times heated debate between Jacques
> Mallah and myself, it became clear we were always arguing from
> disparate positions\cite{Mallah-Standish}. At the heart of our
> difference of opinion was how the strong self sampling
> assumption\index{self sampling assumption!strong|emph} should be
> applied. Jacques Mallah assumed that each observer moment had an
> absolute positive measure, and that our current observer moment is
> selected at random from that distribution.
> Since I accept the TIME postulate,\index{TIME postulate} only the
> birth moment is selected at random, according to the self sampling
> assumption. Thereafter, each observer moment's measure can be
> determined {\em relative} to its predecessor by means of Born's
> rule\index{Born rule}
> (\ref{proj-prob}). Arguing with this notion of observer measure, first
> person immortality follows provided the no cul-de-sac conjecture\index{no 
> cul-de-sac conjecture} is
> true.
> The Everything List adopted the term {\em Absolute Self Sampling
>   Assumption}\index{self sampling assumption!absolute|emph} to
>   refer to Mallah's use of strong self sampling, and the {\em Relative
>   Self Sampling Assumption}\index{self sampling assumption!relative|emph} for 
> the version I use.  Since this
>   debate took place, other debates have taken place between members of
>   the ``absolute'' camp, which includes such names as Jacques
>   Mallah,\index{Mallah, Jacques}
>   Saibal Mitra,\index{Mitra, Saibal} Hal Finney\index{Finney, Hal} and the 
> ``relative'' camp which includes
>   Bruno Marchal,\index{Marchal, Bruno} Stathis
>   Papaioannou, and myself.
> \index{Papaioannou, Stathis}\index{Standish, Russell}
> Both of these ``camps'' appear to have internally consistent pictures.
> The fact that I'm not currently experiencing childhood, is for me
> strong evidence that the ASSA is an incorrect application of the
> strong self sampling assumption.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-
> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics                              
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-

I think you can add me to the ASSA camp :)

How does the fact that you're not experiencing childhood provide
evidence that ASSA is incorrect, as chances of experiencing childhood
or adulthood are both significant so I don't see why that would rule
out ASSA ... I kind of expected a different definition for RSSA as this
definition does not even solve any of the crazy paradoxes ASSA has ...
Well, anyway, time to look up the time postulate :)

Also, do you believe one can convince oneself of MWI (versus CI) by
performing a quantum suicide ?

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to