I salute this post, not because of the technicalities (which I don't want to 
get mixed into - understandably), but for its stance on the 'statistical'. 
I visualize the totality as incomprehensible for the present human mind with 
its limited mental capacity and so whatever 'we' want to comprehend and handle, 
we chop it off into limited models (parts of the totality, on any grounds). Now 
what difference does it make in the (elusive) 'reality' whether in our 
selection we find (by our ways(!) of looking) more or less matching occasions? 
Take another choice of boundaries and such frequency will change. I do not use 
'infinity', but in the "unlimited" variations of 'everything possible' (not in 
our judgement). 
A 'supernatural(?) Loeb machine may include larger models, but to encompass the 
totality it should have been the totality itself. (Leading to the several times 
mentioned "everything = Nothing" maxim.)

Remarks to 2 parts of your last par:
"Do most on this list believe there must be some statistical reason for
the order of your current observer moment?"
As I take it, science must not become a matter of a democratic(?) vote. Few may 
find the right things and many may be misled. A good statistical question about 
statistical answers. 
Then again I wonder how to read your "order (of your current) OM"? I identify 
an observer as anything (-body incl.) that 'receives' information (not the 
Shannon 'bit': in my vocab.: info = difference accepted - any). [for those who 
like split hair: identity may also be information, if it is considered as a 
variant in the assumption of variations].
And for 'order' I like David Bohm's vocab: things known. 
(as in 'Explicate Order'). So I figure the OM as some 'snapshot' what science 
likes to take and call it a 'state'. In the ceaseless change we live in -  it 
is transitional. 
"Are self sampling assumptions necessary to rule out talking white rabbit 
The SSA may refer to "anything possible", WhtRabU included. So we may have 
experiences about them as well. Our assumptions don't seem to me as a 
protection to stay within our (assumed?<G>) "reason". I have yet to find a way 
to get into such. Colin's limited solipsism is one obstacle. We know what we 
know about, compose our 'world' accordingly. 
Experiencing is also tricky: it may refer to a 'first', an AHA, but it may be 
the series of acknowledging again and again something already known. 
Experiencing the regularity of...(and I refuse the convert the experienced 
thing into 'regularity' as a 1st.).


John M 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jason 
  To: Everything List 
  Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:25 PM
  Subject: Statistical Measure, does it matter?

  Every conscious perspective within the UD could be said to have some
  statistical measure in relation to other conscious perspectives.
  Which is to say, some experiences occur with a greater frequency than
  others.  However, I am wondering if any useful conclusions can be made
  from this as Self Sampling Assumptions do.

  An argument that casts doubt on SSA's is:  First, whatever measure an
  experience has, if it exists in the UD it has probability 1 of being
  experienced, regardless of how frequently or infrequently it occurs in
  the UD.  Second, if two experiences are indistinguishable what/how/why
  does it matter if it is experienced one time or a million?  How can an
  experience be given more "weight" by being more common within the UD?
  Is it meaningful to say an experience can be experienced multiple

  A reason for believing SSA's is: If one considered an infinite set
  containing one instance of every distinguishable observer moment, more
  would contain disorded and illogical (talking white rabbit)
  experiences vs. what we would consider to be ordered and logical
  experiences.  Consider just visual experiences, there are many more
  ways for a disordly almost random image (such as this
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/Tux_secure.jpg ) to be
  experienced than for a meaningful image (like your computer monitor
  infront of you) to be experienced.

  As you read and contemplate this post, you find yourself experiencing
  a rational universe and perspective.  Is your experience now a rare
  abberation among the set of all possible experiences or is there
  something to be said for SSA's?  SSA's would suggest most experiences
  are produced in universes that are stable and ordered enough for life
  to evolve, and therefore making completely illogical experiences
  highly unlikely (but not impossible as they could occur as the initial
  conditions of a program in the UD).

  Do most on this list believe there must be some statistical reason for
  the order of your current observer moment?  Are self sampling
  assumptions necessary to rule out talking white rabbit experiences?


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