On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 10:21:41PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 
> On 30/09/2007, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Incidently, this is the core of Jacques Mallah's argument against
> > QTI. In the end, I discovered that his argument was internally
> > consistent, but relied on the ASSA assumption, which I wasn't
> > comfortable with. I wrote about this debate in my book.
> 
> Could this be a way to reconcile both ASSA and RSSA? You can expect to
> survive indefinitely *and* you can expect to find yourself in a period
> of high measure. It also explains why you aren't the oldest person in
> the world.
> 

It isn't, because Mallah's DA + ASSA predicts a negligible probability
of finding oneself in an OM of (say) greater than 120 years old,
whereas with the RSSA one has the QTI predictions, and experiencing
being 200 years old is not that unusual. Explaining how two
intelligent people can come to such dramatically different conclusions
from a given argument lead to formalising this distinction between the
ASSA and the RSSA.


Cheers
-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics                              
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to