On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 02:52:44PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > It is here that if we apply Bayes' theorem (like in the Doomday > argument), we should be astonished not being already very old (from > our first person perspective). But Bayes cannot be applied in this > setting, as we have already discussed a lot in the past. > > Bruno Marchal >
Superficially, this seems to be a very succinct form of Mallah's argument. You're basically saying that given I'm Russell Standish, and QTI, why don't I find myself arbitrarily far removed from the origin (my birth). Of course, the objections to this are obvious, and have been discussed before in this list. The above doomsday argument assumes a linear sequence of OMs that characterise "Russell Standish", which cannot be the case in a Multiverse (required for QTI). Sampling of Russell Standish observer moments must be over all OMs that were born Russell Standish, and weighted by the universal prior, giving more weight to being a baby than an adult. Now all we need is for Mallah to admit that the above is not a strawman, and we're done. ASSA vs RSSA can be put in the dustbin :). -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
