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
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
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
"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.).
----- Original Message -----
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at