On Jan 15, 6:35 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/1/15 Nick Prince <m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk>:
> > 1. Do you think dementia a cul de sac branch then (MWI or single
> > world?
> There are branches where your mind gradually fades away to nothing.
> However, there are other branches where you start dementing then
> recover, as well as branches where you don't dement at all. It's the
> probability of being stuck in a branch where you incrementally dement
> but never actually reach total mindlessness that you have to worry
> > 2 Why is there any distinction between the RSSA and the ASSA. Can we
> > just not say that the RSSA is the (apparent) consequences of some non
> > uniform distribution over OM's accessed under the ASSA?
> > 3 Do you think this non uniform distribution is due to the laws of
> > phyisics or is physics the consequence of the distribution?
> The distribution of OM's is not required to be uniform under either
> the ASSA or the RSSA. The RSSA says that given you already exist, your
> successor OM will be sampled from a subset of OM's which have your
> present OM in their immediate subjective past. The distribution of
> OM's is due to the nature of whatever process gives rise to them,
> whether that is a single human brain in a single world cosmology, an
> ensemble of brains following the laws governing the multiverse, or the
> UD running in Platonia.
> Stathis Papaioannou
Thank you Stathis.
You can see I am struggling with these self sampling assumptions. I
just cannot get a handle on how to think about them. I noticed in a
past post (Many pasts - not according to QM) you said:
>I attempted something like your water tank model of the multiverse with the
>game I describe here:
>My conclusion was that the relative measure is important in determining the
>successor OM (I think this is what you call the RSSA, although I prefer to
>spell it out when the idea is at all problematic), but the absolute measure
>makes no difference from the observer's point of view (is this a rejection
>of the ASSA?).
>One can imagine God shuffling all the instantiations of all the OM's
>associated with a particular observer and pulling out an OM at random, which
>will then more probably be an OM with higher absolute measure. But this is
>not how it works from the observer's point of view, contemplating his place
>in the multiverse. For a start, it is impossible to know what the absolute
>measure of an OM is, because it makes no first person difference. If it did,
>i.e. if multiple instantiations of an OM could somehow be distinguished,
>then by definition it is not the one OM.
I could not access the link you gave. Do you have another link to it
because I think I need an analogy to help me here. Jesse Mazer's was a
good one (and correct as far as I know?) but your ideas relating to
how the RSSA can be thought of in this analogy would be welcomed too.
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
For more options, visit this group at