I’ve read through a good deal of previous posts on the ASSA/RSSA debate but I keep reaching a stumbling block regarding how successive observer moments (OM) are to be expected in terms of their continuity. I think Youness Ayaita queried the same thing as I am here but articulated it much better - this post was "a question concerning the ASSA/RSSA debate (Sept 18 2007). Stathis gave an answer which was very helpful (as usual) but he still referred to a uniform? distribution which I find difficult to understand. Russell called it global!
>From the everything wiki I have looked up the relevant definitions for the two contentious sampling assumptions which are quote : "The Relative Self Sampling Assumption (RSSA) is a form of anthropic reasoning that assumes our present observer moment is selected according to a measure that depends on another given observer moment (the prior observer moment). As such it implicitly relies on a notion of time that gives rise to a succession of observer moments. In one interpretation of quantum mechanics, observer moments are identified with the quantum state |psi>. The measure used with the RSSA is just given by the Born rule The Absolute Self Sampling Assumption, (ASSA) is a form of anthropic reasoning that assumes our present observer moment is selected from the set of all observer moments according to some absolute measure. To be contrasted with the Relative Self Sampling Assumption." Where I have difficulty with understanding the ASSA is in terms of its implications for our next observer moment. Is the absolute measure, referred to in the ASSA definition really intended to be a uniform distribution in the sense that my next OM could be equally any one from the multiverse? This would be strange indeed and would result in me experiencing all sorts of discontinuous happenings – even if the reference class was restricted to OM’s which I experience. On the other hand, am I to understand that the ASSA does not carry with it any implicit assumption about the probability distribution (absolute measure) that OM’s are selected from? Instead must we assume the nature of this distribution for picking out our next OM is to be determined by some other considerations like: “it is the laws of physics which glue OM’s together” as an example)? (I know that a computationalist might come up with another solution as to how the OM’s are stitched together, but that is not my point). Is it assumed (as a given for now anyway), that there is some additional mechanism or explanation as to why observer moments are stitched together in the way they are? Or, if a uniform distribution is implied, then how can this be reasonable? The RSSA, as I understand it would use the Born rule to indicate which successive OM’s are possible and likely. Why the ASSA is applicable to determine our birth OM I am also not sure of either. I would be very grateful to anyone who can clarify this for me. Many thanks Nick Prince
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.