Re: A question concerning the ASSA/RSSA debate
On 20 Sep., 04:04, Russell Standish wrote: The way I use the term, the ASSA just refers to use a global measure for answering the question What is my next OM experienced. For other questions using a global measure over OMs, the original term SSSA (strong SSA) should be used. I'm aware of a few situations (mostly hypotheticals) where the SSSA is valid. The SSA refers to a global measure on birth moments, and the RSSA is typically based on the SSA. If the supporters of the ASSA use the term in the sense you describe, then I really don't understand them. If I ask what my next experience will be, I can only consider observer moments identifying themselves as myself, Youness Ayaita. Otherwise they should postulate that I is not linked to the process of self- identification, but that it is an absolute entity jumping from one observer moment to another. The everything list wiki has some notes on the RSSA/ASSA distinction - I'm wondering if these shouldn't be inserted directly into Wikipedia, as the everything wiki has been near death since its inception. Due to a momentary problem of my internet connection, I have no access to the everything wiki. So, I don't know how it looks. But in general, I strongly support the idea of establishing a wiki for us, and I would participate, too. One reason, of course, is to have a reference for the various definitions used in our discussions. I also see further reasons: For example, there are so many books and articles concerned with the anthropic principle and other ideas somehow linked to the Everything ensemble. It would be great to have a short summary and review of every interesting book/article one of us has read. This would simplify the process of finding adequate literature. We could also list famous philosophers and physicists (David Lewis, Max Tegmark, Hugh Everett, ...) of interest and copy the basic information out of Wikipedia (or at least give a link to Wikipedia). I'd also welcome the idea of summarizing the various theories individually defended by participants of this list in the wiki. The interdependency of the theories would be clear, and links to other articles to the wiki could be used. I don't like the current situation in which everyone is only concerned with his own website publishing articles there. A central website would be much more comfortable; of course, links to the specific homepages where the theories are described in detail, could be added without any problem. Youness --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: A question concerning the ASSA/RSSA debate
On 18/09/2007, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What remains unclear in this definition is the term reference class which is also the source of the ASSA/RSSA debate. When we want to know which observer moment to expect next, we look at the class of all observer moments provided with a measure. The ASSA applies a uniform measure over all observer moments, whereas supporters of the RSSA may for example apply the Born rule to the class of observer moments given by quantum theory. That's an outline of how I understand it. One of the main issues of contention where the ASSA/RSSA distinction has come up on this list is quantum immortality. In the situation where your measure in the multiverse will plummet in the next moment as the result of some disaster which will from a third person perspective almost certainly kill you, ASSA proponents say that from a first person perspective too you will almost certainly die, while RSSA proponents say that from a first person perspective you will certainly survive. The way the problem is stated - what will I experience in the next moment? - sets the reference class: those moments of conscious experience which could qualify as my next moment. I have serious problems with this kind of reasoning. It suggests the misleading idea of some entity (let's call it the self) jumping from one observer moment to the next. In general, this is a very questionable concept, of course. I feel satisfied with the idea that the observer moments don't come up with a measure by themselves and that nothing at all is jumping. Nothing at all is jumping, but it feels as if something is jumping. Continuity of consciousness may be an illusion, but it's an illusion that people generally wish to continue. We will introduce measures for practical reasons depending on the problem we are concerned with. The same holds for the study of chains of observer moments. In each case, I will find it useful to introduce different concepts that will show resemblance to the ASSA or RSSA. 1st problem: What will I experience next? I refused the idea of the 'self' being an entity jumping between observer moments. So the word I does not refer to something fixed. It is a vague perception of self-identification (e.g. to be Youness Ayaita) that is part of the current observer moment. If we consider the evolution of the observer from a third person perspective (within our world and its usual dynamics), then we will see how the observer changes with time. Though, as far as his capacity for remembering did not disappear, the observer will still find within himself the old self-identification. This self-identification makes the observer have the feeling that his identity is something constant which is preserved. This feeling gives a meaningful understanding of the word I in the question of interest. By the word I the question restricts the class of observer moments to those who share the mentioned self-identification, e.g. to be Youness Ayaita. This class probably consists for the most part of observers that other observers would identify as Youness Ayaita, too. The word next (despite of the fact that it makes only sense in worlds with time) leads to a further restriction to the class of observer moments: The observer moment to choose must include the memory that the last experience was to ask the question: What will I experience next? The small subclass we have now typically corresponds to what we would expect from quantum theory. The measure that comes up with it corresponds to the Born rule. Nonetheless, the Born rule is not of general applicability here. For example, if the observer falls into coma and wakes up some years later or if he is frozen for some time in some futuristic machine, the observer moments waking up at a later time must have a nonzero measure as well. On the contrary, if the observer experiences a dangerous accident losing his capacity for remembering, the observer moment after the accident has a zero measure for the question of interest. To summarize, we see that a specific question leads to a specific measure. In this case, we get a result usually assigned to the RSSA. Right! 2nd problem: Having had an accident that led to the loss of his capacity for remembering, an observer asks himself (before noticing his environment): Who am I? In this case, the self-identification process failed. Thus, the word I cannot be refered to a self-identification but rather to the identification by other observers. The class of observer moments of interest is restricted: We are only interested in conscious observers that don't have a self-identification process. Thus, in worlds similar to ours we would assign a non-zero measure to all observer moments waking up after such an accident or having lost their capability of self-identification due to some kind of mental illness. This measure has nothing in common with the quantum mechanical Born
Re: A question concerning the ASSA/RSSA debate
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 04:48:58AM -0700, Youness Ayaita wrote: So, I don't see any need for some kind of fundamental measure for observer moments. Whenever we have a restriction defining a subclass of observer moments that are of interest, we are naturally driven to the RSSA and to a specific measure. If we have no restriction, then we assign equal measure to all observer moments leading to the ASSA. I do not see the categorical difference between the two concepts. Can you make clear where the difference lies? Thank you Youness Ayaita The way I use the term, the ASSA just refers to use a global measure for answering the question What is my next OM experienced. For other questions using a global measure over OMs, the original term SSSA (strong SSA) should be used. I'm aware of a few situations (mostly hypotheticals) where the SSSA is valid. The SSA refers to a global measure on birth moments, and the RSSA is typically based on the SSA. The everything list wiki has some notes on the RSSA/ASSA distinction - I'm wondering if these shouldn't be inserted directly into Wikipedia, as the everything wiki has been near death since its inception. Cheers -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
A question concerning the ASSA/RSSA debate
When Bruno spoke of the ASSA I looked up some messages in this list dealing with the ASSA and RSSA. My message does not aim at initiating yet another controversial discussion of the subject. But I rather hope that you will assist me resolving a misunderstanding. Searching for the self-sampling assumption in Wikipedia leads to the definition: Each observer moment should reason as if it were randomly selected from the class of all observer moments in its reference class. What remains unclear in this definition is the term reference class which is also the source of the ASSA/RSSA debate. When we want to know which observer moment to expect next, we look at the class of all observer moments provided with a measure. The ASSA applies a uniform measure over all observer moments, whereas supporters of the RSSA may for example apply the Born rule to the class of observer moments given by quantum theory. That's an outline of how I understand it. I have serious problems with this kind of reasoning. It suggests the misleading idea of some entity (let's call it the self) jumping from one observer moment to the next. In general, this is a very questionable concept, of course. I feel satisfied with the idea that the observer moments don't come up with a measure by themselves and that nothing at all is jumping. We will introduce measures for practical reasons depending on the problem we are concerned with. The same holds for the study of chains of observer moments. In each case, I will find it useful to introduce different concepts that will show resemblance to the ASSA or RSSA. 1st problem: What will I experience next? I refused the idea of the 'self' being an entity jumping between observer moments. So the word I does not refer to something fixed. It is a vague perception of self-identification (e.g. to be Youness Ayaita) that is part of the current observer moment. If we consider the evolution of the observer from a third person perspective (within our world and its usual dynamics), then we will see how the observer changes with time. Though, as far as his capacity for remembering did not disappear, the observer will still find within himself the old self-identification. This self-identification makes the observer have the feeling that his identity is something constant which is preserved. This feeling gives a meaningful understanding of the word I in the question of interest. By the word I the question restricts the class of observer moments to those who share the mentioned self-identification, e.g. to be Youness Ayaita. This class probably consists for the most part of observers that other observers would identify as Youness Ayaita, too. The word next (despite of the fact that it makes only sense in worlds with time) leads to a further restriction to the class of observer moments: The observer moment to choose must include the memory that the last experience was to ask the question: What will I experience next? The small subclass we have now typically corresponds to what we would expect from quantum theory. The measure that comes up with it corresponds to the Born rule. Nonetheless, the Born rule is not of general applicability here. For example, if the observer falls into coma and wakes up some years later or if he is frozen for some time in some futuristic machine, the observer moments waking up at a later time must have a nonzero measure as well. On the contrary, if the observer experiences a dangerous accident losing his capacity for remembering, the observer moment after the accident has a zero measure for the question of interest. To summarize, we see that a specific question leads to a specific measure. In this case, we get a result usually assigned to the RSSA. 2nd problem: Having had an accident that led to the loss of his capacity for remembering, an observer asks himself (before noticing his environment): Who am I? In this case, the self-identification process failed. Thus, the word I cannot be refered to a self-identification but rather to the identification by other observers. The class of observer moments of interest is restricted: We are only interested in conscious observers that don't have a self-identification process. Thus, in worlds similar to ours we would assign a non-zero measure to all observer moments waking up after such an accident or having lost their capability of self-identification due to some kind of mental illness. This measure has nothing in common with the quantum mechanical Born rule. So, I don't see any need for some kind of fundamental measure for observer moments. Whenever we have a restriction defining a subclass of observer moments that are of interest, we are naturally driven to the RSSA and to a specific measure. If we have no restriction, then we assign equal measure to all observer moments leading to the ASSA. I do not see the categorical difference between the two concepts. Can you make clear where the difference lies? Thank you Youness Ayaita
