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
> about.
>
> > 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:
>http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m6608.html.
>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.

Kind regards

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.


Reply via email to