On 3/31/2011 5:58 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Is that assuming that QM uncertainty increases to the future but not the
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.
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
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 :).
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3540 - Release Date: 03/30/11
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at