# Re: how to define ASSA (was: The ASSA leads to a unique utilitarism)

```
Le 05-oct.-07, à 09:14, Wei Dai a écrit :```
```
>
>>> Perhaps we need to distinguish a "Strong Self-Sampling Assumption",
>>> which is like the SSA but instead of discussing "observers", it
>>> refers to
>>> "observer-instants".
>>
>> Useful distinction, indeed.
>>
>> Nevertheless I do think we should also distinguish between
>> a relative strong SSA and a absolute strong SSA.
>> The idea is that we can only quantify the first-person
>> indeterminism on the set of consistent observer-instants
>> extensions. I mean : consistent with the observers memory of its own
>> (first person) past.
>
> Actually now I'm not sure what Bruno really meant. I had assumed that
> ASSA
> was the same thing as SSSA, only with the clarification that it's not
> relative. But if Bruno had really meant to define ASSA as "SSSA
> applied to
> the next observer moment" then I have been using the term "ASSA"
> incorrectly.

It is really a difficult matter. That is partially why I try to find a
more direct (arithmetical) interpretation of the OMs, in term of the
sigma1 sentences (those having the shape "it exist a number having such
verifiable property"). Those sentences are coding the universal
deployement in the arithmetical language, and I intend to try to
explain more. I think we have to distinuish already 1-OM, 3-OM,
1-plural-OM, etc.

> 1. You should reason as if your current observer-moment was randomly
> selected from a distribution that is shared by everyone and
> independent of
> your current observations (hence "absolute").

> 2. You should expect your next observer-moment to be randomly selected
> from
> a distribution that is shared by everyone and independent of your
> current
> observations.

I would say before further clarifications: you should expect your next
observer-moment to belong to the "closer" computational history among
those which would have reach your current OMs (platonically: no machine
can define with certainty which one that current state is).
And "closer computational history" is what I ask the lobian machine to
define for me. Hmm... sorry.

Again, I repeat it could be that ASSA and RSSA and other views will fit
better when we progress catching misunderstandings.

Bon Week-end,

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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