subject:"Re\: R\/ASSA query"


Rex Allen wrote:

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
  

There is some reality independent of us but which we invent
theories about which refer to some aspects of this reality.



Is this reality deterministic or random?  

Random.


What caused it to exist?
  


Who said it needs a cause?


Why does it have the aspects that it has?  How is it that it gives
rise to conscious experience?
  


My theory is that physical processes of great complexity corresponding 
to what we call information processing and which include the 
construction of narrative histories in memory instantiate consciousness 
of a human type.  I think when we understand these processes and the 
brain better we will come to understand there are different degrees and 
kinds of consciousness and the term isn't technically useful.

So it seems to me that we have two options:

1) We can take the equations of physics as being in some way true of
an inexplicably existing independent reality.
  


We only take them a provisionally true and/or approximate.

OR

2) We can take the equations as being true of the contents of our
conscious experience. Experience which itself is fundamental and
uncaused…and thus also inexplicable.

Ultimately, I don't see any way to choose between these two options.
  
Then maybe they are the same.  Sometimes there are two ways of 
mathematically expressing a theory that are provably identical (e.g. 
Heisenberg's matrix mechanics and Schroedingers equation), yet one is 
much more fruitful.



BUT, option #2 has the benefit of greater simplicity.
  
But the ontology of physics refers to lots of things that are only very 
indirectly related to our conscious experience (like the Big Bang, and 
quarks).  I don't think (2) is simple or useful at all.  It is the 
extreme positivist philosophy which attempted to recast physics in terms 
only of relations between sense perceptions.  Mach was one its 
proponents and he refused to believe in atoms and considered them mere 
fictions because they couldn't be seen.  Now they can be seen by 
scanning tunneling microscopes.



Option #1 has the problem of explaining the existence and structure of
an independently existing universe/multiverse, 



I think you have a strange view of explanation.  We invent theories that 
described things and how they work.  If we find they have predictive 
power and are not contrary to experience we provisionally accept them 
and use them to make decisions and test newer theories.  An explanation 
doesn't have to explain everything in order to count as explanation.



PLUS also the problem
of explaining how this unconscious material world gives rise to
conscious experience…by which I mean qualia.
  


But #1 can do something to explain the events that make use believe 
other people exist and have experiences.  We can study them and their 
brains and how they function and make successful predictions about this 
or that will affect their qualia.  #2 can't predict anything except 
insofar as it can justify and take advantage of the success of #1.



Option #2 has the problem of explaining the existence and structure of
experience. But that’s it.

Note, however, that both options yield the same “ultimate
explanation”: Things just are the way they are.

The ultimate explanation for both is that there is no explanation for
the way things are.

So I’m not saying that the equations found in physics are wrong. I’m
just suggesting that they don’t mean what you think they mean.
  


What do you think I think they mean?


  

They do if they want a finite answer.



So you believe that the nature of reality is in some way infinite?


  

I would say that all that we can know are our perceptions, what we
consciously experience. From this we can derive all sorts of beliefs
about the way things *really* are. But these beliefs inevitably
involve unproved assumptions.

Therefore it seems to me that the fewer unproved assumptions, the
better. And it seems to me that the theory with the fewest of these is
that conscious experience is fundamental. Conscious experience is what
*really* exists and everything else is just an aspect of it.

  

Unfortunately that doesn't explain anything.



It's as good an explanation as anything you've provided.


  

It has no predictive power.



Ah, your fetish.

Given determinism, what is the significance of a prediction generated
from within the deterministic system?
  


That your method of prediction has some truth to it.


Given randomness, what is the significance of prediction generated
from within the random system?

  


That your method of prediction will yield the right relative frequencies.
  

 On the other hand evolution predicts that there will be a new flu virus
next year and it will be similar at the molecular level to the one this
year.



Same as happened last year.  And the year before.  Project that
forward, same as will happen next year.  Just come

Re: R/ASSA query


John Mikes wrote:
Dear Brent, just a tiny (but fundamental?) question. You wrote (never 
mind 'on' what):
 
/One can look at them that way, but ARE they that way?/


It was Rex who wrote that.
// 
/the BIG  question:  are we in any position to identify 'real 
existence' *(are)* vs. our assumptions - what we like to call here 
'descriptions'? There are so many as/pre/sumed thought experimental 
descriptions floating around that it takes a superhuman mind to scroll 
back ALL with ALL consequences included and arrive at a pristine 
primitive - if at all possible. Even in such case: _OUR judgement_ is 
completely blurred by the interpretations our mind(set) formulates 
anything into, based on its limited computing (we call it 
'tissue-work?' with genetically differential origination?) plus the 
previously absorbed experience (memory etc.) subjected to a 'human'(?) 
logic what we cannot surpass (our mind?). /
// 
/So how do we distinguish What - I S - ?/


I don't think we do.  We formulate our theory/model of the world.  If it 
works we provisionally accept it as a good description of the world.  It 
might be true, but even it is we'll never *know* with certainty it is; 
it will always be provisional for us.  And the lesson of history is that 
it will be subsumed with a better, more accurate or more comprehesive 
theory in the future.


Brent


/ /
// 
/Bruno makes it easy: *leave it to the universal machine* - but I am 
afraid that anyone of us imagining a universal machine and its given 
information (interview?) (no matter if accepting the exclusivity of 
arithmetical aspects, or not) still hovers within our presently 
applicable HUMAN terms and explanations of OUR mind. It was different 
for Thomas Aquinas, for Newton, for Moses, or the Vedaic sages, but WE 
have OUR vocabulary and meaning-glossary to use, following our present 
'ways' - and we use it that way. /
// 
/Excuse me if I do not refer to the rest of your very valuable post, I 
just wanted to shoot at a presumption that bothers my agnosticism./
// 
/Best regards/
// 
/John Mikes/
// 
// 



 
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com 
mailto:rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:


On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Brent Meeker
meeke...@dslextreme.com mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
 Rex Allen wrote:

 On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
 stath...@gmail.com mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote:


 There is no real distinction between the different
possibilities you
 mention, but evolution has programmed me to think that I am a
single
 individual travelling in the forward direction through time.


 How did evolution do that?  By what means?  Using what causal
powers?

 Evolution can't really be used as an explanation for anything
can it?
  Evolution is just a useful fictional narrative that helps us think
 about what we observe.

 For example, if deterministic physicalism is true, then the initial
 configuration of matter at the universe’s first instant, plus the
 causal laws that govern the subsequent behavior of this matter as
 applied over 13.7 billion years fully determines the current
state of
 the universe today.

 In this case, there is nothing for evolution to do. It is purely a
 description of what we observe, not an explanation of it. The
state of
 the world is today was fixed by the initial conditions plus the
causal
 laws of physics.  Any explanation for the way you are lies
there, not
 with evolution.

 There is no “competition” for survival. There is no “selection”.
 Instead, events involving fundamental particles unfold as they
must…in
 the only way that they can.

 When we say “competition among creatures”, what we really mean
is “it
 is as though there were competition among creatures”. Because what
 really exists are fundamental particles (quantum fields, strings,
 whatever), not “creatures”. It is only in our minds that we take
 collections of quarks and electrons and form them into creatures.

 Since they aren't fundamental laws, evolution and natural selection
 have no causal power.  We just speak of them as if they did.

 Further, even allowing for some kind of quantum randomness still
 doesn’t give “evolution” anything to do. Though it does muddy the
 water a bit.

 Right?  Or wrong?



 You invoke physical determinism and causal laws - but you can look
 at those too as merely descriptions.

One can look at them that way, but ARE they that way?

If the current state of the universe is a necessary consequence of
it's initial state, then causal laws are what provide the necessary
aspect of the relationship.  In this case, any question about why
things are the way they are today can be transformed into a question
about the

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-16 Thread Rex Allen

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
 Rex Allen wrote:

 What caused it to exist?


 Who said it needs a cause?

Why this reality as opposed to nothing?  Given the principle of
sufficient reason, wouldn't nothingness be the expected state of
things?

But, given that reality exists, why are things this way as opposed to
some other way?

St. Augustine observed that if someone were to stand barefoot on the
beach for all eternity, then his footmark on the sand would be eternal
too, but nonetheless it would still have its cause – the foot making
it. -  M. Heller, Ultimate Explanations of the Universe


Further, to quote Roger Scruton on the same topic:

“Suppose we were to accept the big bang hypothesis concerning the
origin of the universe. Only a short-sighted person would think that
we have then answered the question of how the world began. For what
caused the bang? Any answer will suppose that something already
existed. So the hypothesis cannot explain the origin of things. The
quest for an origin leads us forever backwards into the past. But
either it is unsatisfiable- in which case, how does cosmology explain
the existence of the world? - or it comes to rest in the postulation
of a causa sui - in which case, we have left the scientific question
unanswered and taking refuge in theology. Science itself pushes us
towards the antinomy, by forcing us always to the limits of nature.”


And a final quote for Wittgenstein:

“It’s not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it
exists.” - Proposition 6.44, Logico Tractatus Philosophicus



 Given determinism, what is the significance of a prediction generated
 from within the deterministic system?


 That your method of prediction has some truth to it.

Even if you accept that various configurations of matter can result in
conscious experiences, there's no reason to think that the experiences
will in any way reveal anything about the underlying system that
caused them, is there?


 Given randomness, what is the significance of prediction generated
 from within the random system?


 That your method of prediction will yield the right relative frequencies.

For randomness there are no right relative frequencies, are there?
Relative frequencies are just the number of times a particular event
occurred divided by the total number of trials.

For a random process, if you wait long enough you can get any relative
frequency of events for any desired sample size, correct?

Isn't it meaningless to speak of predicting anything about a random process?



 Why does it have the aspects that it has?  How is it that it gives
 rise to conscious experience?


 My theory is that physical processes of great complexity corresponding to
 what we call information processing and which include the construction of
 narrative histories in memory instantiate consciousness of a human type.  I
 think when we understand these processes and the brain better we will come
 to understand there are different degrees and kinds of consciousness and the
 term isn't technically useful.

You seem to have no problem with the existence of matter as a given.
No explanation needed, apparently.  Why judge conscious experience by
a different standard?

It seems to me that you are starting with a strong bias towards matter
as fundamental, instead of starting with a clean slate and working
forward from first principles.

So we start with our observations, and then we construct narratives
that are consistent with what we have observed. These narratives may
be useful in analyzing recurring patterns in the records of our past
observations, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are true of
anything that exists outside of our observations.

The possible existence of matter in the form of quarks and electrons
(or strings, or quantum fields, or whatever) is consistent with our
observations, but obviously we have no direct knowledge of quarks and
electrons or the rest. Their existence, and the physical laws
associated with them, are inferred from our observations.

Even something right in front of me, like my chair, I still only know
through my conscious experience. I see a chair here, but I don’t know
that the chair actually exists. I could be dreaming, for instance, in
which case the chair exists entirely within my mind.

Now, the world that I perceive is pretty stable and orderly. What
could explain all of that order? Well…ultimately, nothing can explain
it. Ultimately you have to conclude that my perceptions just are that
way.

For instance, let’s say that I explain the order that I perceive by
postulating that a world of matter and energy with governing laws
exists independently of me. Okay, now we just need to explain this
external world. Where did the matter and energy come from? What causes
the governing laws? Why this kind of matter and energy and physical
laws as opposed to some other?

In other words, what caused the cause of my orderly perceptions?

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-16 Thread Rex Allen

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:09 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
 Dear Brent, just a tiny (but fundamental?) question. You wrote (never mind
 'on' what):

 One can look at them that way, but ARE they that way?

 the BIG  question:  are we in any position to identify 'real existence'
 (are) vs. our assumptions - what we like to call here 'descriptions'? There
 are so many as/pre/sumed thought experimental descriptions floating around
 that it takes a superhuman mind to scroll back ALL with ALL consequences
 included and arrive at a pristine primitive - if at all possible. Even in
 such case: OUR judgement is completely blurred by the interpretations our
 mind(set) formulates anything into, based on its limited computing (we call
 it 'tissue-work?' with genetically differential origination?) plus the
 previously absorbed experience (memory etc.) subjected to a 'human'(?) logic
 what we cannot surpass (our mind?).

 So how do we distinguish What - I S - ?


Let me just through this passage about Kant out there, to see if it
gets any traction with you:

“According to Kant, it is vital always to distinguish between the
distinct realms of phenomena and noumena. Phenomena are the
appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the
(presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality. All of our
synthetic a priori judgments apply only to the phenomenal realm, not
the noumenal. (It is only at this level, with respect to what we can
experience, that we are justified in imposing the structure of our
concepts onto the objects of our knowledge.) Since the thing in itself
(Ding an sich) would by definition be entirely independent of our
experience of it, we are utterly ignorant of the noumenal realm.

Thus, on Kant’s view, the most fundamental laws of nature, like the
truths of mathematics, are knowable precisely because they make no
effort to describe the world as it really is but rather prescribe the
structure of the world as we experience it. By applying the pure forms
of sensible intuition and the pure concepts of the understanding, we
achieve a systematic view of the phenomenal realm but learn nothing of
the noumenal realm. Math and science are certainly true of the
phenomena; only metaphysics claims to instruct us about the noumena.

By the nature of reason itself, we are required to suppose our own
existence as substantial beings and the possibility of our free action
in a world of causal regularity. The absence of any formal
justification for these notions makes it impossible for us to claim
that we know them to be true, but it can in no way diminish the depth
of our belief that they are.”

-- Rex
-- 
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.

Re: R/ASSA query


Rex Allen wrote:

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
  

Rex Allen wrote:


What caused it to exist?

  

Who said it needs a cause?



Why this reality as opposed to nothing?  Given the principle of
sufficient reason, wouldn't nothingness be the expected state of
things?

But, given that reality exists, why are things this way as opposed to
some other way?

St. Augustine observed that if someone were to stand barefoot on the
beach for all eternity, then his footmark on the sand would be eternal
too, but nonetheless it would still have its cause – the foot making
it. -  M. Heller, Ultimate Explanations of the Universe


Further, to quote Roger Scruton on the same topic:

“Suppose we were to accept the big bang hypothesis concerning the
origin of the universe. Only a short-sighted person would think that
we have then answered the question of how the world began. For what
caused the bang? Any answer will suppose that something already
existed. So the hypothesis cannot explain the origin of things. The
quest for an origin leads us forever backwards into the past. But
either it is unsatisfiable- in which case, how does cosmology explain
the existence of the world? - or it comes to rest in the postulation
of a causa sui - in which case, we have left the scientific question
unanswered and taking refuge in theology. Science itself pushes us
towards the antinomy, by forcing us always to the limits of nature.”


And a final quote for Wittgenstein:

“It’s not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it
exists.” - Proposition 6.44, Logico Tractatus Philosophicus


  

Given determinism, what is the significance of a prediction generated
from within the deterministic system?

  

That your method of prediction has some truth to it.



Even if you accept that various configurations of matter can result in
conscious experiences, there's no reason to think that the experiences
will in any way reveal anything about the underlying system that
caused them, is there?
  


It could if the experiences are perceptions of  material processes which 
can be correlated with conscious experiences - as when neurosurgeons 
electrically excite sites on the brain and at the same time the patient 
reports his conscious experience.


  

Given randomness, what is the significance of prediction generated
from within the random system?

  

That your method of prediction will yield the right relative frequencies.



For randomness there are no right relative frequencies, are there?
Relative frequencies are just the number of times a particular event
occurred divided by the total number of trials.

For a random process, if you wait long enough you can get any relative
frequency of events for any desired sample size, correct?
  


No.  The randomness of radioactive decay is confirmed by observing it 
obeys Poisson statistics.  It could have been falsified by observing 
different statistics.  I think you are confusing random with uniformly 
distributed random.  Random doesn't mean everything is equally 
probable; only that some things have probabilities between 0 and 1.

Isn't it meaningless to speak of predicting anything about a random process?
  


Certainly not.  Stochastic processes are used in prediction all the 
time.  If you fly on an airliner you're relying on the engineer's 
stochastic prediction of stress cycles due to turbulence.



  

Why does it have the aspects that it has?  How is it that it gives
rise to conscious experience?

  

My theory is that physical processes of great complexity corresponding to
what we call information processing and which include the construction of
narrative histories in memory instantiate consciousness of a human type.  I
think when we understand these processes and the brain better we will come
to understand there are different degrees and kinds of consciousness and the
term isn't technically useful.



You seem to have no problem with the existence of matter as a given.
No explanation needed, apparently.  Why judge conscious experience by
a different standard?

It seems to me that you are starting with a strong bias towards matter
as fundamental, instead of starting with a clean slate and working
forward from first principles.
  


That's because taking material processes as fundamental has led to great 
success, while taking consciousness as fundamental led to mysticism.



So we start with our observations, and then we construct narratives
that are consistent with what we have observed. These narratives may
be useful in analyzing recurring patterns in the records of our past
observations, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are true of
anything that exists outside of our observations.
  

Sure, that's why they are models and theories - not THE TRUTH.


The possible existence of matter in the form of quarks and electrons
(or strings, or quantum fields, or whatever) is consistent with our

Re: R/ASSA query


Rex Allen wrote:

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:09 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
  

Dear Brent, just a tiny (but fundamental?) question. You wrote (never mind
'on' what):

One can look at them that way, but ARE they that way?

the BIG  question:  are we in any position to identify 'real existence'
(are) vs. our assumptions - what we like to call here 'descriptions'? There
are so many as/pre/sumed thought experimental descriptions floating around
that it takes a superhuman mind to scroll back ALL with ALL consequences
included and arrive at a pristine primitive - if at all possible. Even in
such case: OUR judgement is completely blurred by the interpretations our
mind(set) formulates anything into, based on its limited computing (we call
it 'tissue-work?' with genetically differential origination?) plus the
previously absorbed experience (memory etc.) subjected to a 'human'(?) logic
what we cannot surpass (our mind?).

So how do we distinguish What - I S - ?




Let me just through this passage about Kant out there, to see if it
gets any traction with you:

“According to Kant, it is vital always to distinguish between the
distinct realms of phenomena and noumena. Phenomena are the
appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the
(presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality. All of our
synthetic a priori judgments apply only to the phenomenal realm, not
the noumenal. (It is only at this level, with respect to what we can
experience, that we are justified in imposing the structure of our
concepts onto the objects of our knowledge.) Since the thing in itself
(Ding an sich) would by definition be entirely independent of our
experience of it, we are utterly ignorant of the noumenal realm.

Thus, on Kant’s view, the most fundamental laws of nature, like the
truths of mathematics, are knowable precisely because they make no
effort to describe the world as it really is but rather prescribe the
structure of the world as we experience it. By applying the pure forms
of sensible intuition and the pure concepts of the understanding, we
achieve a systematic view of the phenomenal realm but learn nothing of
the noumenal realm. Math and science are certainly true of the
phenomena; only metaphysics claims to instruct us about the noumena.

By the nature of reason itself, we are required to suppose our own
existence as substantial beings and the possibility of our free action
in a world of causal regularity. The absence of any formal
justification for these notions makes it impossible for us to claim
that we know them to be true, but it can in no way diminish the depth
of our belief that they are.”

-- Rex
  
I think Kant over generalizes and from We can't know the ding an sich 
to We can't know anything (about reality).  If there is no connection 
between what we can observe and Kant's noumena, then his ding is otiose 
and should be sliced off by Ockham's razor.  His noumena is like the 
deist God as an explanation of the origin of the universe - it adds 
nothing but mysticism.


Brent
-- 
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.

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-16 Thread Rex Allen

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
 Rex Allen wrote:
 It seems to me that you are starting with a strong bias towards matter
 as fundamental, instead of starting with a clean slate and working
 forward from first principles.


 That's because taking material processes as fundamental has led to great
 success, while taking consciousness as fundamental led to mysticism.

Mysticism isn't the inevitable result.

Our observations certainly exist, even if they are uncaused and
fundamental. They certainly seem to have a certain order and
consistency, even if there is no real reason for this. The scientific
method can still be applied to look for and analyze recurring patterns
in our observations, and it makes as much sense to do this as not.  We
have to do something to pass the time, after all.



 The possible existence of matter in the form of quarks and electrons
 (or strings, or quantum fields, or whatever) is consistent with our
 observations, but obviously we have no direct knowledge of quarks and
 electrons or the rest. Their existence, and the physical laws
 associated with them, are inferred from our observations.

 Even something right in front of me, like my chair, I still only know
 through my conscious experience. I see a chair here, but I don’t know
 that the chair actually exists. I could be dreaming, for instance, in
 which case the chair exists entirely within my mind.

 Now, the world that I perceive is pretty stable and orderly. What
 could explain all of that order?

 An underlying objective reality.  That's why we tend to think there is a
 reality and dreams, which are less consistent, are not real.

Okay, an underlying objective reality causes the order in what we
experience - but then what causes the order in this underlying
objective reality?

You haven't answered any questions...you've just rephrased them in a
way that suggests that they've been answered.

What causes the order that we experience?  Objective Reality.

What is Objective Reality?  That which causes the order we experience.

Circles, sophistry, and question-begging.


 For a random process, if you wait long enough you can get any relative
 frequency of events for any desired sample size, correct?


 No.  The randomness of radioactive decay is confirmed by observing it obeys
 Poisson statistics.  It could have been falsified by observing different
 statistics.  I think you are confusing random with uniformly distributed
 random.  Random doesn't mean everything is equally probable; only that
 some things have probabilities between 0 and 1.

If I take a radioactive decay source, map the decay events into an 4
bit number, then look for a sequence of 1000 numbers in which the
number 0 comes up 90% of the time (instead of 6.25% of the time as
would be expected for a uniform distribution), I will never, ever,
ever observe this relative frequency?

And there is a 0% chance that the very first 1000 numbers will exhibit
this relative frequency?

As I said, given enough time and enough attempts, it would seem to be
inevitable.  And this would hold equally true for sample sizes of
1, or 10, or whatever.  You'd just have to wait longer
(probably).

So, if we waiting long enough (very very very very very long),
eventually we should see a 1000 year period where the randomness of a
particular radioactive decay source was disconfirmed...it would not be
observed as obeying Poisson statistics, right?


 Well…ultimately, nothing can explain
 it. Ultimately you have to conclude that my perceptions just are that
 way.


 I'm not sure what ultimately means in this context.  I asked before what
 you consider a real explanation.  Is it the same as ultimate
 explanation?  Do we have to *know* with certainty the explanation is true?

An ultimate explanation I guess would be a final explanation, the
last bit of information that can (even in principle) be provided which
is relevant to the question posed.

I'd say that there is no reason for it, it just is that way is
pretty final.  And, for me at least, does produce some feeling of
understanding.


 In other words, what caused the cause of my orderly perceptions? And
 what caused that cause? And so on.

 As I said in an earlier post on another thread, you either have to
 postulate an infinite chain of causes, or a first cause.

 Or you can say, I don't know yet.

Do you see room for a third option?  Or have an intuition that there
may be a third option?


 and this inexplicableness of it seems to be necessary, not
 contingent.

 It seems to me that nothing is lost in concluding that consciousness
 is fundamental,

 A lot is lost, .e.g all of physical science, unless you can show that it can
 be reformulated purely in terms of conscious events - which is what the
 Positivists tried.

I don't see why anything has to be reformulated in terms of conscious events.

Our conscious experiences exist.  There are recurring patterns to what
we observe.

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-16 Thread Jason Resch

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
 wrote:
  Rex Allen wrote:
 
  What caused it to exist?
 
 
  Who said it needs a cause?

 Why this reality as opposed to nothing?  Given the principle of
 sufficient reason, wouldn't nothingness be the expected state of
 things?


Imagine you and I are at two ends of a computer terminal, and you know I am
about to send you a message.  The message encoding is such that there are
two parts, where the first part indicates the message length, and the second
the message.

Notice that before I send any information, the possibility for the message I
might send is unlimited.  You know neither the size nor the content.

As you begin to receive my message, information I send you isn't giving you
anything new, or creating any new possibility, instead it is restricting
that possibility, telling you what the message is not from among all the
infinite possibilities it might have been.

It might be clearer to see how this works considering the multi-verse.  If I
tell you I have a cup on my desk, but not what color it is, you can safely
assume copies of you exist in various branches where it could be any color,
blue, red, yellow, etc.  But if I then tell you it is indeed red, then that
just restricted possibility.

Now apply this concept to the question of why the universe exists, why
something rather than nothing.  What is simpler, nothing existing, or no
restrictions on what exists?  Using that message transfer example, to send
you an empty message requires I send you 1 bit, it would be the bit '0',
indicating the message is zero-length, followed by empty 0-bit long message.
 However, what if I sent no message at all?  That would take 0 bits, and all
possibilities remain open.  Think of it as: is it easier for God to command
that nothing exists, or easier for him to say nothing at all?

This idea is explained in greater detail in Russel Standish's Theory of
Nothing.



 But, given that reality exists, why are things this way as opposed to
 some other way?


If we follow from the assumption we were led to above, that everything
existing is simpler than nothing existing then the laws of physics are
determined by virtue of your ability to observe the universe around you.
 Other observers exist in other universes, with different physical laws, and
also rightly ask why these laws?  The Anthropic principle holds that all
observers find themselves in environments compatible with their existence,
so these laws are what they are because they allowed conscious observers to
evolve to become aware.


 St. Augustine observed that if someone were to stand barefoot on the
 beach for all eternity, then his footmark on the sand would be eternal
 too, but nonetheless it would still have its cause – the foot making
 it. -  M. Heller, Ultimate Explanations of the Universe



Concepts such as time, and cause and effect only exist to those inside the
universe.  Outside of the universe it would be possible to have a 4-d view
of the the entire evolution of the universe.  In this view it would be a
static block.  Think of characters in a movie, with things changing frame by
frame, but if the characters could jump outside the movie they are in they
would see they exist on a fixed DVD, with all frames simultaneously
existing.  They would then see that a question such as what started the
movie playing from the beginning makes no sense, however it would still a
legitimate question to ask where did this DVD come from?


 Further, to quote Roger Scruton on the same topic:

 “Suppose we were to accept the big bang hypothesis concerning the
 origin of the universe. Only a short-sighted person would think that
 we have then answered the question of how the world began. For what
 caused the bang? Any answer will suppose that something already
 existed. So the hypothesis cannot explain the origin of things. The
 quest for an origin leads us forever backwards into the past. But
 either it is unsatisfiable- in which case, how does cosmology explain
 the existence of the world? - or it comes to rest in the postulation
 of a causa sui - in which case, we have left the scientific question
 unanswered and taking refuge in theology. Science itself pushes us
 towards the antinomy, by forcing us always to the limits of nature.”


This question is more akin to asking why does the DVD exist?  The best
answer I have found comes from extending arithmetical realism, the idea that
things such as numbers exist, without cause, timelessly.  One school of
thought believes that numbers are simply ideas and human inventions, but I
disagree.  There are an infinite number of facts one could state about the
number 3, yet of course no single mind in this universe could hold all those
facts.  Should that imply that facts which haven't been in someone's head
are not true, or that numbers too big for anyone to have thought of don't
exist?

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-15 Thread Brent Meeker


Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

2010/1/15 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:

  

Or why not suppose you are your body (including your genes).  Then evolution
would be able to have had the imputed effect on you that you suppose it
does.



The actual effect of any adaptive behaviour must be through the genes,
but evolution could not work directly on a belief about genes. Our
psychology may act against our genes if we are taken out of the
environment in which we evolved; for example the number of children
people choose to have in the modern world is inversely proportional to
the resources they control.


  
I guess I should be more explicit.  I found your post bemusingly 
inconsistent.  You theorized that the continuity of your experience was 
an illusion produced by evolution and you really exist as a sequence 
of discrete OMs.  But evolution is a process that acts on genes and in 
order to have any effect on the real you requires continuity, not only 
of your body moment-by-moment and day-by-day but of your genes over 
millenia.  So it strikes me as very strange to invoke it as creating an 
*illusion* of continuity.  Sort of like the Sun producing an illusion of 
daylight.


Brent
-- 
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.

Re: R/ASSA query


Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

2010/1/14 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com:

  

I agree, there is no subjective difference.  But I think there is a logical
difference, if you are only your current OM why go to work when some other
OM will enjoy the fruits of that labor?  But by attaching every OM to the
same observer then there is a reason to make sacrifices such as work to the
benefit and hopefully overall improvement of the collection of OMs.



I don't think there is a logical difference either. What you make of
this problem is probably the single most important thing in the
philosophy of personal identity.

Suppose in the future you wish to travel by means of destructive
teleportation. There are two types of ticket that you can buy: Economy
Class and First Class. Economy Class costs $500 and guarantees that
the person coming out at the receiving station has the same physical
structure, and hence the same memories and other mental attributes, as
the person who went into the sending station. First Class costs $1000
and is the same as Economy Class, except that it is additionally
guaranteed that the person coming out is the same person as the one
who went in. Which ticket would you buy?


  
The Economy Class ticket.  The First Class is a guarantee they'll 
destroy the original.  :-)


Brent
-- 
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.

Re: R/ASSA query

2010/1/14 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:

 Also if QTI is true then my birth OM could be just the consistence
 extension of the consciousness of someone who has died.  QTI implies
 we always have a next observer moment.  Somehow this begs the question
 as to whether consiousness is conserved somehow. Hence there never was
 an (initial) original birth OM for me just like there will be no cul
 de sac one.

You don't need QTI or a multiverse if you want to say that your birth
OM is the consistent extension of someone who just died; it's
trivially true anyway, since at the moment of death and the moment of
birth (or perhaps somewhat earlier) there is very little conscious
content. This also implies that there will be cul de sacs of a sort
even if the QTI is true, since you could go down the path of
increasing dementia.

I'm not sure how the probabilities should be calculated in the case of
partial memory loss. Suppose you are destructively scanned and eleven
copies of you are made. One of these copies (call it type A) is
perfect but the other ten copies (call them type B) are brain damaged
with only 10% of your memories and other attributes intact. What is
your expectation that you will end up a type A or a type B copy? A
reasonable-sounding answer might be 1/2 for each, incorporating a
weighting for number of copies and degree of fidelity. But what about
the zillions of conscious beings in the universe who may each have one
zillionth of your mental attributes?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-- 
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.

Re: R/ASSA query

2010/1/15 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com:

 I would think the business is operating a scam and possibly report them for
 making deceptive claims in advertising.  There is no difference between the
 economy or first class tickets other than price and so I would go with the
 economy level ticket.  I don't see how this is related, however, to the
 distinction between you being a single timeless OM, and only that OM, and
 you being a collection of, (possibly all) OMs.  Once someone admits personal
 identity can be composed of multiple OMs it becomes a very unclear where to
 draw the line on where that person ends and another begins.

But personal identity is composed of multiple OM's anyway, even if
there's just one biological version of you who lives and eventually
dies in a single physical universe. You had a moment of experience
THEN and another moment of experience NOW: two OM's. Are they two
single timeless OM's or are they both part of the stream of
consciousness of the one individual? The distinction is meaningless.
OM's will either seem to be connected or disconnected due to their
content. I like to say that each OM exists independently and
transiently and continuity of consciousness is an illusion, because it
simplifies questions about personal identity.

 Consider
 evolution through time, and through the multi-verse, alternate you's in
 other branches where you differ so little that even you could not tell
 yourself apart.  It forms a spectrum that could in extremely small steps
 connect you to any other person, so under that view where can you draw the
 line?  How many genes or how many memories must differ for you not to be
 you?

There's no clear answer. This is where the idea that we live only
transiently is helpful: there is no fact-of-the-matter about who is me
and who isn't since none of them are me, but we can talk about under
what circumstances the illusion of continuity of identity would be
preserved.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-- 
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.

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-14 Thread Nick Prince



On Jan 14, 9:51 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
 2010/1/14 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:







 The ASSA proponents say that even though there are
 thousand year old versions of you in the multiverse they are of very
 low measure and you are therefore very unlikely to find yourself one
 of them.

  How do they know this though?  If the probability distribution was
  uniform then versions of me at any age would be just as probable.
  This is what I don’t get because they must be assuming there is some
  (unknown) probability distribution which accounts for the fact that
  thousand year old people are extremely unlikely.  What they must be
  assuming is that each OM arises in a non uniform manner.  I presume
  they think this because the laws of physics underpins the biochemical
  effects which make us age and this must be represented in the
  distribution (somehow). So there is an implicit assumption about the
  probability distribution on OM’s lurking around. So why not accept
  that the distribution is based on the Born rule which means RSSA?

 The probability distribution is not uniform since as you get older
 more and more versions of you die, so that you take up an
 ever-narrower slice of the multiverse.

 --
 Stathis Papaioannou- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -

So
1. Do you think dementia a cul de sac branch then (MWI or single
world?
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?


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.

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-14 Thread russell standish

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:21:34AM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
 If you don't believe they are you, that would imply when you put a pot of
 coffee on the stove, you do so out of altruism.  Since it only benefits
 those future observers who have memory of being you but are not.  It's not a
 useful philosophy for building anything on top of such as decision making as
 according to that theory, observers cannot make changes affecting what they
 will experience (since they only are that one moment).  Perhaps things
 really are that way, but evolution has created a useful illusion of
 continuity which leads to the overall betterment of OM's on average.  Rather
 than sit around never making coffee because it will be someone else who
 experiences it, you decide to make it knowing someone else will be better
 off for it.  As you said, there would be no observational distinction
 between whether you are one OM, one track of OMs, or all OMs, but they lead
 to different philosophies, the first being perhaps something like nihilism,
 nothing you do matters to your.  The second leads to egocentrism and
 selfishness.  The last leads to a golden rule, sacrifice for others type of
 ethic.  I think the middle one is the most complex, because it has the
 hardest definition as to what OMs to group together.  Of the first and last,
 the last is perhaps simpler too, since it could be thought to attach one
 observer to all OMs rather than an observer for each OM.
 
 
 Jason

The last viewpoint leads to a kind of fatalism - all these other OMs
exist/happen anyway, nothing I can do will change that.

To get the golden rule evolving, you need a complex system of
rewards and punishments, and perhaps a fair amount of shared DNA (see
the usual evolutionary explanations for altruism). But it still
evolves under the second option above.

Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics  
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
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 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.

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-14 Thread Jason Resch

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:22 PM, russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:21:34AM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
If you don't believe they are you, that would imply when you put a pot of
coffee on the stove, you do so out of altruism. Since it only benefits
those future observers who have memory of being you but are not. It's
not a
useful philosophy for building anything on top of such as decision making
as
according to that theory, observers cannot make changes affecting what
they
will experience (since they only are that one moment). Perhaps things
really are that way, but evolution has created a useful illusion of
continuity which leads to the overall betterment of OM's on average.
Rather
than sit around never making coffee because it will be someone else who
experiences it, you decide to make it knowing someone else will be better
off for it. As you said, there would be no observational distinction
between whether you are one OM, one track of OMs, or all OMs, but they
lead
to different philosophies, the first being perhaps something like
nihilism,
nothing you do matters to your. The second leads to egocentrism and
selfishness. The last leads to a golden rule, sacrifice for others type
of
ethic. I think the middle one is the most complex, because it has the
hardest definition as to what OMs to group together. Of the first and
last,
the last is perhaps simpler too, since it could be thought to attach one
observer to all OMs rather than an observer for each OM.

Jason

The last viewpoint leads to a kind of fatalism - all these other OMs
exist/happen anyway, nothing I can do will change that.

If a person or society evolves to become more altruistic it would affect the
distribution and measure of future OMs, hopefully to the positive, where
there would be fewer suffering OMs. This does enter into the whole
pre-destination/free-will question, but so long as the measure of OMs is of
importance I don't think the last viewpoint leads to fatalism.

To get the golden rule evolving, you need a complex system of
rewards and punishments, and perhaps a fair amount of shared DNA (see
the usual evolutionary explanations for altruism). But it still
evolves under the second option above.

I have some familiarity with theories concerning how altrusim evolved, but
the type of altruism evolution has left us with is far from optimal if the
goal is to optimize the overall quality of OMs. Evolved altruism teaches us
to favor ourselves, our family, and our tribe in that order and above
strangers or less familiar people, but does this lead to optimal behavior?
In terms of gene propagation, perhaps, not the overall quality of OMs. For
example, most people would agree donating an organ to save a life is a good
thing, and many do to save a family member. Far fewer would consider
donating an organ to a complete stranger, but isn't net benefit and cost the
same, regardless of who receives it? Objectively yes, but not for the genes
of the donor. Evolution can only take us so far, and it also leads to
occasional defectors a'la the prisoner dilemma, where a sociopath benefits
from taking advantage of other's good will.

This last viewpoint, if fully embraced, provides a framework where even a
sociopath could decide it in his or her interest to act altruistically. Not
entirely selflessly, but with an equal balance between one's self and any
other conscious entities. If someone would benefit more from having
something you possessed, this view would suggest you should offer it to
them. It naturally yields utilitarianism, the golden rule, giving away a
spare coat if you have two, etc.

Jason
--

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.

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-14 Thread benjayk


I would say the concept of OM moments is, if taken as more then as a fuzzy
pointer to some now, is an oversimplification (or an overcomplexification,
depends on your viewpoint), so there is no absolute meaning to ASSA/RSSA.

Maybe there is only one observer moment (eternal life of god, I AM) and
in this moment sub-OM appear. For example I AM THAT 'I AM'  which might be
the realization that you are all persons or god or one or all
moments; maybe keeping it in mind is what some people would call
enlightenment? This moment of realization can apparently contain a
number of other moments, too, that seem deeply and mystically connected. I
just had it for a few seconds, but in this seconds there was no divide
between this and the next moment, I flowed in that clear and blissful
moment. I didn't feel like I was someone having to do (or being able to do)
something, but rather I felt like being the eternal watcher. It's a
beautiful feeling - you somehow become detached from time and feel like
being still, yet still witness time. 

Maybe this applies to other self-indentifications like I am the one at
home, I am the one at work, I am the one born at ... (even though less
clearly in my own perception). They are moments by themselves, but contain
other moments, too. It's like when you stare at a monitor with changing
content. The moment that contains the information about the appearance of
the monitor stays, but the moment of what happens on the monitor changes.

You can't divide life into pieces, it is an continuum of overlapping
sensations. There is a pattern of remembering old moments and experiencing
new moments embedded in the I AM moment that gives the impression of a
flowing string of events (many short, but strongly similiar moments that
have an apparent evolutionary direction)  happening to some person (a
relatively stable moment) - (maybe appearing to sort of a over-person or god
or I AM that is even more stable?).

I think this can resolve the problem of personal identity, because your
identity is just an especially stable moment, that can relate many
sub-moments to itself and thus becomes especially self-aware (or maybe aware
of its own eternal nature?).
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/R-ASSA-query-tp27135951p27171439.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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.

Re: R/ASSA query

2010/1/15 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com:

 There's no clear answer. This is where the idea that we live only
 transiently is helpful: there is no fact-of-the-matter about who is me
 and who isn't since none of them are me, but we can talk about under
 what circumstances the illusion of continuity of identity would be
 preserved.

 If you don't believe they are you, that would imply when you put a pot of
 coffee on the stove, you do so out of altruism.  Since it only benefits
 those future observers who have memory of being you but are not.  It's not a
 useful philosophy for building anything on top of such as decision making as
 according to that theory, observers cannot make changes affecting what they
 will experience (since they only are that one moment).  Perhaps things
 really are that way, but evolution has created a useful illusion of
 continuity which leads to the overall betterment of OM's on average.  Rather
 than sit around never making coffee because it will be someone else who
 experiences it, you decide to make it knowing someone else will be better
 off for it.  As you said, there would be no observational distinction
 between whether you are one OM, one track of OMs, or all OMs, but they lead
 to different philosophies, the first being perhaps something like nihilism,
 nothing you do matters to your.  The second leads to egocentrism and
 selfishness.  The last leads to a golden rule, sacrifice for others type of
 ethic.  I think the middle one is the most complex, because it has the
 hardest definition as to what OMs to group together.  Of the first and last,
 the last is perhaps simpler too, since it could be thought to attach one
 observer to all OMs rather than an observer for each OM.

There is no real distinction between the different possibilities you
mention, but evolution has programmed me to think that I am a single
individual travelling in the forward direction through time. It's
possible to go through life not questioning this until we consider
duplication thought experiments, which evolution had not taken into
account. But having this insight does not make the illusion any less
real, nor do I have any desire to be free of it, since that would go
against my evolutionary programming. I do try to be altruistic, but
being selfish (caring for the needs of my future selves) comes more
easily.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-- 
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.

Re: R/ASSA query


Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

2010/1/15 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com:

  

There's no clear answer. This is where the idea that we live only
transiently is helpful: there is no fact-of-the-matter about who is me
and who isn't since none of them are me, but we can talk about under
what circumstances the illusion of continuity of identity would be
preserved.
  

If you don't believe they are you, that would imply when you put a pot of
coffee on the stove, you do so out of altruism.  Since it only benefits
those future observers who have memory of being you but are not.  It's not a
useful philosophy for building anything on top of such as decision making as
according to that theory, observers cannot make changes affecting what they
will experience (since they only are that one moment).  Perhaps things
really are that way, but evolution has created a useful illusion of
continuity which leads to the overall betterment of OM's on average.  Rather
than sit around never making coffee because it will be someone else who
experiences it, you decide to make it knowing someone else will be better
off for it.  As you said, there would be no observational distinction
between whether you are one OM, one track of OMs, or all OMs, but they lead
to different philosophies, the first being perhaps something like nihilism,
nothing you do matters to your.  The second leads to egocentrism and
selfishness.  The last leads to a golden rule, sacrifice for others type of
ethic.  I think the middle one is the most complex, because it has the
hardest definition as to what OMs to group together.  Of the first and last,
the last is perhaps simpler too, since it could be thought to attach one
observer to all OMs rather than an observer for each OM.



There is no real distinction between the different possibilities you
mention, but evolution has programmed me to think that I am a single
individual travelling in the forward direction through time. It's
possible to go through life not questioning this until we consider
duplication thought experiments, which evolution had not taken into
account. But having this insight does not make the illusion any less
real, nor do I have any desire to be free of it, since that would go
against my evolutionary programming. I do try to be altruistic, but
being selfish (caring for the needs of my future selves) comes more
easily.


  
So you think that the continuous physical processes of evolution 
produced the illusion of continuity which you now see is really discrete 
OMs?


Brent
-- 
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.

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-14 Thread Rex Allen

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
stath...@gmail.com wrote:

 There is no real distinction between the different possibilities you
 mention, but evolution has programmed me to think that I am a single
 individual travelling in the forward direction through time.

How did evolution do that?  By what means?  Using what causal powers?

Evolution can't really be used as an explanation for anything can it?
 Evolution is just a useful fictional narrative that helps us think
about what we observe.

For example, if deterministic physicalism is true, then the initial
configuration of matter at the universe’s first instant, plus the
causal laws that govern the subsequent behavior of this matter as
applied over 13.7 billion years fully determines the current state of
the universe today.

In this case, there is nothing for evolution to do. It is purely a
description of what we observe, not an explanation of it. The state of
the world is today was fixed by the initial conditions plus the causal
laws of physics.  Any explanation for the way you are lies there, not
with evolution.

There is no “competition” for survival. There is no “selection”.
Instead, events involving fundamental particles unfold as they must…in
the only way that they can.

When we say “competition among creatures”, what we really mean is “it
is as though there were competition among creatures”. Because what
really exists are fundamental particles (quantum fields, strings,
whatever), not “creatures”. It is only in our minds that we take
collections of quarks and electrons and form them into creatures.

Since they aren't fundamental laws, evolution and natural selection
have no causal power.  We just speak of them as if they did.

Further, even allowing for some kind of quantum randomness still
doesn’t give “evolution” anything to do. Though it does muddy the
water a bit.

Right?  Or wrong?
-- 
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.

Re: R/ASSA query


Rex Allen wrote:

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
stath...@gmail.com wrote:
  

There is no real distinction between the different possibilities you
mention, but evolution has programmed me to think that I am a single
individual travelling in the forward direction through time.



How did evolution do that?  By what means?  Using what causal powers?

Evolution can't really be used as an explanation for anything can it?
 Evolution is just a useful fictional narrative that helps us think
about what we observe.

For example, if deterministic physicalism is true, then the initial
configuration of matter at the universe’s first instant, plus the
causal laws that govern the subsequent behavior of this matter as
applied over 13.7 billion years fully determines the current state of
the universe today.

In this case, there is nothing for evolution to do. It is purely a
description of what we observe, not an explanation of it. The state of
the world is today was fixed by the initial conditions plus the causal
laws of physics.  Any explanation for the way you are lies there, not
with evolution.

There is no “competition” for survival. There is no “selection”.
Instead, events involving fundamental particles unfold as they must…in
the only way that they can.

When we say “competition among creatures”, what we really mean is “it
is as though there were competition among creatures”. Because what
really exists are fundamental particles (quantum fields, strings,
whatever), not “creatures”. It is only in our minds that we take
collections of quarks and electrons and form them into creatures.

Since they aren't fundamental laws, evolution and natural selection
have no causal power.  We just speak of them as if they did.

Further, even allowing for some kind of quantum randomness still
doesn’t give “evolution” anything to do. Though it does muddy the
water a bit.

Right?  Or wrong?
  
Evolution assumes randomness, whether epistemic or inherent it serves to 
explain.  You invoke physical determinism and causal laws - but you can 
look at those too as merely descriptions.   Yet evolution, like 
physical laws, have predictive value.  They go beyond just describing 
what has already been seen.  So what do you consider a 'real' explanation?


Brent
-- 
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.

Re: R/ASSA query

2010/1/15 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:

 There is no real distinction between the different possibilities you [Jason 
 Resch]
 mention, but evolution has programmed me to think that I am a single
 individual travelling in the forward direction through time. It's
 possible to go through life not questioning this until we consider
 duplication thought experiments, which evolution had not taken into
 account. But having this insight does not make the illusion any less
 real, nor do I have any desire to be free of it, since that would go
 against my evolutionary programming. I do try to be altruistic, but
 being selfish (caring for the needs of my future selves) comes more
 easily.

 So you think that the continuous physical processes of evolution produced
 the illusion of continuity which you now see is really discrete OMs?

We could just consider whether we are the same person from day to day
with an intervening period of unconsciousness (Nagel's day-person),
avoiding the separate question of whether OM's are discrete or
continuous. There is no reason why a race of such people with such
beliefs could not evolve if there were some adaptive advantage to it,
such as promotion of altruism and the good of the group. A
philosophically inclined day-person might then reason thus:

I feel that I will die overnight and a different person will wake up
in my bed in the morning. That person will look similar to me and will
share most of my memories, but it won't be me, just as I am not any of
the people who came before me and whose memories I now have. However,
this belief is just a contingent fact of evolution. I feel that I am
the same person as I was an hour ago, but the relationship that
earlier self has to me is not really different to the relationship I
have to the person who will wake in my bed tomorrow. I would not be
violating any logical or empirical fact if I said either that: (a) I
remain the same person from day to day and the feeling that I don't
survive sleep is an illusion; or (b) I do not remain the same person
from moment to moment but I have the illusion that I do. If we
consider duplication thought experiments (a) becomes problematic,
since there might be two or more versions of me at the one time each
with an equal claim to being me. Therefore, I think (b) is the best
way to think about it objectively. Nevertheless, even even though I
now see that the way I've always thought about myself is an illusion,
it's not an illusion I can shake off, nor one I would want to shake
off. Such is the strength of my evolutionary programming.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-- 
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.

Re: R/ASSA query

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
-- 
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.

Re: R/ASSA query


Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

2010/1/15 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:

  

There is no real distinction between the different possibilities you [Jason 
Resch]
mention, but evolution has programmed me to think that I am a single
individual travelling in the forward direction through time. It's
possible to go through life not questioning this until we consider
duplication thought experiments, which evolution had not taken into
account. But having this insight does not make the illusion any less
real, nor do I have any desire to be free of it, since that would go
against my evolutionary programming. I do try to be altruistic, but
being selfish (caring for the needs of my future selves) comes more
easily.
  

So you think that the continuous physical processes of evolution produced
the illusion of continuity which you now see is really discrete OMs?



We could just consider whether we are the same person from day to day
with an intervening period of unconsciousness (Nagel's day-person),
avoiding the separate question of whether OM's are discrete or
continuous. There is no reason why a race of such people with such
beliefs could not evolve if there were some adaptive advantage to it,
such as promotion of altruism and the good of the group. A
philosophically inclined day-person might then reason thus:

I feel that I will die overnight and a different person will wake up
in my bed in the morning. That person will look similar to me and will
share most of my memories, but it won't be me, just as I am not any of
the people who came before me and whose memories I now have. However,
this belief is just a contingent fact of evolution. I feel that I am
the same person as I was an hour ago, but the relationship that
earlier self has to me is not really different to the relationship I
have to the person who will wake in my bed tomorrow. I would not be
violating any logical or empirical fact if I said either that: (a) I
remain the same person from day to day and the feeling that I don't
survive sleep is an illusion; or (b) I do not remain the same person
from moment to moment but I have the illusion that I do. If we
consider duplication thought experiments (a) becomes problematic,
since there might be two or more versions of me at the one time each
with an equal claim to being me. Therefore, I think (b) is the best
way to think about it objectively. Nevertheless, even even though I
now see that the way I've always thought about myself is an illusion,
it's not an illusion I can shake off, nor one I would want to shake
off. Such is the strength of my evolutionary programming.


  
Or why not suppose you are your body (including your genes).  Then 
evolution would be able to have had the imputed effect on you that you 
suppose it does.


Brent
-- 
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.

Re: R/ASSA query

2010/1/15 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:

 Or why not suppose you are your body (including your genes).  Then evolution
 would be able to have had the imputed effect on you that you suppose it
 does.

The actual effect of any adaptive behaviour must be through the genes,
but evolution could not work directly on a belief about genes. Our
psychology may act against our genes if we are taken out of the
environment in which we evolved; for example the number of children
people choose to have in the modern world is inversely proportional to
the resources they control.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-- 
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.

Re: R/ASSA query

2010/1/13 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:

 I’ve read through a good deal of previous posts on the ASSA/RSSA
 debate but I keep reaching a stumbling block regarding how successive
 observer moments (OM) are to be expected in terms of their
 continuity.  I think Youness Ayaita  queried the same thing as I am
 here but articulated it much better - this post was a question
 concerning the ASSA/RSSA debate (Sept 18 2007).  Stathis gave an
 answer which was very helpful  (as usual) but he still referred to a
 uniform? distribution which I find difficult to understand.  Russell
 called it global!

 From the everything wiki I have looked up the relevant definitions for
 the two contentious sampling assumptions which are quote :

 The Relative Self Sampling Assumption (RSSA) is a form of anthropic
 reasoning that assumes our present observer moment is selected
 according to a measure that depends on another given observer moment
 (the prior observer moment). As such it implicitly relies on a notion
 of time that gives rise to a succession of observer moments.
 In one interpretation of quantum mechanics, observer moments are
 identified with the quantum state |psi. The measure used with the
 RSSA is just given by the Born rule

 The Absolute Self Sampling Assumption, (ASSA) is a form of anthropic
 reasoning that assumes our present observer moment is selected from
 the set of all observer moments according to some absolute measure. To
 be contrasted with the Relative Self Sampling Assumption.

 Where I have difficulty with understanding the ASSA is in terms of its
 implications for our next observer moment.  Is the absolute measure,
 referred to in the ASSA definition really intended to be a uniform
 distribution in the sense that my next OM could be equally any one
 from the multiverse?  This would be strange indeed and would result in
 me experiencing all sorts of discontinuous happenings – even if the
 reference class was restricted to OM’s which I experience. On the
 other hand, am I to understand that the ASSA does not carry with it
 any implicit assumption about the probability distribution (absolute
 measure) that OM’s are selected from?  Instead must we assume the
 nature of this distribution for picking out our next OM is to be
 determined by some other considerations like: “it is the laws of
 physics which glue OM’s together” as an example)?  (I know that a
 computationalist might come up with another solution as to how the
 OM’s are stitched together, but that is not my point).  Is it assumed
 (as a given for now anyway), that there is some additional mechanism
 or explanation as to why observer moments are stitched together in the
 way they are?  Or, if a uniform distribution is implied, then how can
 this be reasonable?

 The RSSA, as I understand it would use the Born rule to indicate which
 successive OM’s are possible and likely.

 Why the ASSA is applicable to determine our birth OM I am also not
 sure of either.  I would be very grateful to anyone who can clarify
 this for me.

The ASSA/RSSA distinction on this list came, as I understand it, from
debate on the validity of the idea of quantum immortality. This is
the theory that in a multiverse you can never die, because at every
juncture where you could die there is always a version of you that
continues living. The ASSA proponents say that even though there are
thousand year old versions of you in the multiverse they are of very
low measure and you are therefore very unlikely to find yourself one
of them, as unlikely as you are to end up living to a thousand through
pure good luck in a single universe. This paper by Jacques Mallah
outlines the position: http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0187. A point of
disagreement when we discussed this paper on the list about a year ago
is that Jacques thinks it would be a bad thing if there were many
copies of a person in lockstep and some of the copies were destroyed,
whereas if I were one of the copies it wouldn't worry me at all.

The problem with the ASSA is that it assumes that each OM is sampled
randomly from the set of all OM's. In fact, this is not how life
works. Today is Wednesday. I'm pretty sure that when I wake up
tomorrow morning it will be Thursday, and not Friday, even though
(absent some disaster) the measure of my Friday OM's in the multiverse
is about the same as the measure of my Thursday OM's. Even if there
were a billion copies of me on Friday and only one copy on Thursday, I
can still expect to go through the Thursday copy before ending up a
Friday copy. Once embedded in the multiverse, it puts constraints on
my possible successor OM.

If I'm not already embedded in the multiverse then I could be anyone,
and I am therefore more likely to be someone from a high probability
group or era. So I am more likely to be a modern human than an early
human, for example, because there are more modern humans. I think
that's what Russell means by the ASSA being aplicable in birth order.
This is a tricky

Re: R/ASSA query

2010/1/14 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com:

 Given the ways ASSA has been defined, I think there are two possible camps
 within ASSA.  One that believes there is a next moment for you to
 experience, chosen randomly from among all, and another which believes there
 is no next moment, the observer is the observer moment, an eternal thought.
  In that respect, ASSA would be more likely to tie the informational state
 to the consciousness rather than the computational process itself.  In the
 fixed, no next OM model, which one you find yourself is sampled from among
 all OMs, just who you start is is selected within RSSA.
 One might think it is absurd to believe they will never observer the next
 moment, that they might be stuck forever never having finished this
 sentence, and that 5 seconds from now will prove this idea wrong.  But
 perhaps the you who waited 5 seconds is simply the OM you will be forever.
  Problems defining personal identity only creep in between the extremes
 of believing every OM is a unique observer and believing all OMs belong to
 the same observer.  The latter idea is more interesting to me, as it yields
 reasons for why we should plan and work for the future, and why it is good
 to treat others as they would like to be treated, while the former offers no
 reason, or even ability to try or do anything.

You can't deny that it *seems* there is a next OM and it *seems* that
there is a set of OM's constituting your life. This would happen even
if in fact all the OM's were completely separate, disconnected
entities. In other words, the question of whether the OM's are
separate or belong to the one observer is meaningless, since there is
no subjective difference.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-- 
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.

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-13 Thread Jason Resch

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:

2010/1/14 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com:

Given the ways ASSA has been defined, I think there are two possible
camps
within ASSA. One that believes there is a next moment for you to
experience, chosen randomly from among all, and another
which believes there
is no next moment, the observer is the observer moment, an eternal
thought.
In that respect, ASSA would be more likely to tie the informational
state
to the consciousness rather than the computational process itself. In
the
fixed, no next OM model, which one you find yourself is sampled from
among
all OMs, just who you start is is selected within RSSA.
One might think it is absurd to believe they will never observer the next
moment, that they might be stuck forever never having finished this
sentence, and that 5 seconds from now will prove this idea wrong. But
perhaps the you who waited 5 seconds is simply the OM you will be
forever.
Problems defining personal identity only creep in between the extremes
of believing every OM is a unique observer and believing all OMs belong
to
the same observer. The latter idea is more interesting to me, as it
yields
reasons for why we should plan and work for the future, and why it is
good
to treat others as they would like to be treated, while the former offers
no
reason, or even ability to try or do anything.

You can't deny that it *seems* there is a next OM and it *seems* that
there is a set of OM's constituting your life. This would happen even
if in fact all the OM's were completely separate, disconnected
entities. In other words, the question of whether the OM's are
separate or belong to the one observer is meaningless, since there is
no subjective difference.

I agree, there is no subjective difference. But I think there is a logical
difference, if you are only your current OM why go to work when some other
OM will enjoy the fruits of that labor? But by attaching every OM to the
same observer then there is a reason to make sacrifices such as work to the
benefit and hopefully overall improvement of the collection of OMs. While
one might believe all OM's exist so it doesn't matter what anyone does it is
possible to escape this in believing the number or measure of OMs matters.
This has also been a matter of contention on this list.

Jason
--

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.

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-13 Thread Brent Meeker


Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

...
The ASSA/RSSA distinction on this list came, as I understand it, from
debate on the validity of the idea of quantum immortality. This is
the theory that in a multiverse you can never die, because at every
juncture where you could die there is always a version of you that
continues living. The ASSA proponents say that even though there are
thousand year old versions of you in the multiverse they are of very
low measure and you are therefore very unlikely to find yourself one
of them, as unlikely as you are to end up living to a thousand through
pure good luck in a single universe. This paper by Jacques Mallah
outlines the position: http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0187. A point of
disagreement when we discussed this paper on the list about a year ago
is that Jacques thinks it would be a bad thing if there were many
copies of a person in lockstep and some of the copies were destroyed,
whereas if I were one of the copies it wouldn't worry me at all.

The problem with the ASSA is that it assumes that each OM is sampled
randomly from the set of all OM's. In fact, this is not how life
works. Today is Wednesday. I'm pretty sure that when I wake up
tomorrow morning it will be Thursday, and not Friday, even though
(absent some disaster) the measure of my Friday OM's in the multiverse
is about the same as the measure of my Thursday OM's. Even if there
were a billion copies of me on Friday and only one copy on Thursday, I
can still expect to go through the Thursday copy before ending up a
Friday copy. Once embedded in the multiverse, it puts constraints on
my possible successor OM.

If I'm not already embedded in the multiverse then I could be anyone,
and I am therefore more likely to be someone from a high probability
group or era. So I am more likely to be a modern human than an early
human, for example, because there are more modern humans. I think
that's what Russell means by the ASSA being aplicable in birth order.
This is a tricky concept to get your mind around and leads to
semi-weirdness such as the Doomsday Argument. But that I'll experience
Thursday before Friday even if there are lots of me on Friday is, I
think, relatively straightforward.


  
Is this different from your idea that experiencing Friday only comes 
after experinicing Thursday because Friday contains some memory of 
Thursday?  You seem to be assuming an extrinsic order in the above.


Brent
-- 
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.

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-13 Thread Nick Prince



On Jan 13, 6:21 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
 Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
  ...
  The ASSA/RSSA distinction on this list came, as I understand it, from
  debate on the validity of the idea of quantum immortality. This is
  the theory that in a multiverse you can never die, because at every
  juncture where you could die there is always a version of you that
  continues living. The ASSA proponents say that even though there are
  thousand year old versions of you in the multiverse they are of very
  low measure and you are therefore very unlikely to find yourself one
  of them, as unlikely as you are to end up living to a thousand through
  pure good luck in a single universe. This paper by Jacques Mallah
  outlines the position:http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0187. A point of
  disagreement when we discussed this paper on the list about a year ago
  is that Jacques thinks it would be a bad thing if there were many
  copies of a person in lockstep and some of the copies were destroyed,
  whereas if I were one of the copies it wouldn't worry me at all.

  The problem with the ASSA is that it assumes that each OM is sampled
  randomly from the set of all OM's. In fact, this is not how life
  works. Today is Wednesday. I'm pretty sure that when I wake up
  tomorrow morning it will be Thursday, and not Friday, even though
  (absent some disaster) the measure of my Friday OM's in the multiverse
  is about the same as the measure of my Thursday OM's. Even if there
  were a billion copies of me on Friday and only one copy on Thursday, I
  can still expect to go through the Thursday copy before ending up a
  Friday copy. Once embedded in the multiverse, it puts constraints on
  my possible successor OM.

  If I'm not already embedded in the multiverse then I could be anyone,
  and I am therefore more likely to be someone from a high probability
  group or era. So I am more likely to be a modern human than an early
  human, for example, because there are more modern humans. I think
  that's what Russell means by the ASSA being aplicable in birth order.
  This is a tricky concept to get your mind around and leads to
  semi-weirdness such as the Doomsday Argument. But that I'll experience
  Thursday before Friday even if there are lots of me on Friday is, I
  think, relatively straightforward.

 Is this different from your idea that experiencing Friday only comes
 after experinicing Thursday because Friday contains some memory of
 Thursday?  You seem to be assuming an extrinsic order in the above.

 Brent-

I am thinking it must have something to do with this. The probability
distribution I brought up in my answer to Stathis must have some sort
of conditional status for OM's and so somehow each observer moment
must have a kind of date/time stamp associated with it i.e. OM at time
1 is somehow contained in OM at time 2.  However, in the past, I just
ascribed this to be because of the need for a consistency with the
laws of physics.  What puzzles me is whether the probability
distribution which accounts for these time (and space/matter)
sequenced observer moments is prior to and therefore responsible for
the laws of physics or whether it is the other way round because this
would seem to be some way to help determine the distinction between a
physicalist or an observationalist TOE.

Best

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.

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-13 Thread John Mikes

Stathis,
I feel both ASSA and RSSA are variations WITHIN human thinking with a
minuscule difference of handling.  When I TRY to think about 'everything' I
feel I have to step out from the restrictions of the human 'mind'(?)
capabilities and (at least) imagine to grasp totality (i.e.  the wholeness)
without 'assuming' any self-sampling limitations - be it absolute, or
relative, - in its uncompromised entirety..
The fact that (today?) we cannot do it, is no argument against 'it has to be
done'.
I don't settle for half-solutions when I am looking for the theoretically
right answers. No compromise. I am 'agnostic', meaning that I condone my
incapability to reach such levels.

Are you in favor of a self-inflicted - assumed (limited) gnosis?

Yes, I am shooting at the stars: being on the Everything list is not a
ground-level compromise for (humanly?) attainable (partial) knowledge. To be
satisfied with such, one should attend Physics 101. Or: arithmetic 101 (not
even math 101).


John Mikes




On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:

 2010/1/13 Nick Prince m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk:
  
  I’ve read through a good deal of previous posts on the ASSA/RSSA
  debate but I keep reaching a stumbling block regarding how successive
  observer moments (OM) are to be expected in terms of their
  continuity.  I think Youness Ayaita  queried the same thing as I am
  here but articulated it much better - this post was a question
  concerning the ASSA/RSSA debate (Sept 18 2007).  Stathis gave an
  answer which was very helpful  (as usual) but he still referred to a
  uniform? distribution which I find difficult to understand.  Russell
  called it global!
 
  From the everything wiki I have looked up the relevant definitions for
  the two contentious sampling assumptions which are quote :
 
  The Relative Self Sampling Assumption (RSSA) is a form of anthropic
  reasoning that assumes our present observer moment is selected
  according to a measure that depends on another given observer moment
  (the prior observer moment). As such it implicitly relies on a notion
  of time that gives rise to a succession of observer moments.
  In one interpretation of quantum mechanics, observer moments are
  identified with the quantum state |psi. The measure used with the
  RSSA is just given by the Born rule
 
  The Absolute Self Sampling Assumption, (ASSA) is a form of anthropic
  reasoning that assumes our present observer moment is selected from
  the set of all observer moments according to some absolute measure. To
  be contrasted with the Relative Self Sampling Assumption.
 
  Where I have difficulty with understanding the ASSA is in terms of its
  implications for our next observer moment.  Is the absolute measure,
  referred to in the ASSA definition really intended to be a uniform
  distribution in the sense that my next OM could be equally any one
  from the multiverse?  This would be strange indeed and would result in
  me experiencing all sorts of discontinuous happenings – even if the
  reference class was restricted to OM’s which I experience. On the
  other hand, am I to understand that the ASSA does not carry with it
  any implicit assumption about the probability distribution (absolute
  measure) that OM’s are selected from?  Instead must we assume the
  nature of this distribution for picking out our next OM is to be
  determined by some other considerations like: “it is the laws of
  physics which glue OM’s together” as an example)?  (I know that a
  computationalist might come up with another solution as to how the
  OM’s are stitched together, but that is not my point).  Is it assumed
  (as a given for now anyway), that there is some additional mechanism
  or explanation as to why observer moments are stitched together in the
  way they are?  Or, if a uniform distribution is implied, then how can
  this be reasonable?
 
  The RSSA, as I understand it would use the Born rule to indicate which
  successive OM’s are possible and likely.
 
  Why the ASSA is applicable to determine our birth OM I am also not
  sure of either.  I would be very grateful to anyone who can clarify
  this for me.

 The ASSA/RSSA distinction on this list came, as I understand it, from
 debate on the validity of the idea of quantum immortality. This is
 the theory that in a multiverse you can never die, because at every
 juncture where you could die there is always a version of you that
 continues living. The ASSA proponents say that even though there are
 thousand year old versions of you in the multiverse they are of very
 low measure and you are therefore very unlikely to find yourself one
 of them, as unlikely as you are to end up living to a thousand through
 pure good luck in a single universe. This paper by Jacques Mallah
 outlines the position: http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0187. A point of
 disagreement when we discussed this paper on the list about a year ago
 is that Jacques thinks it would be a bad thing

Re: R/ASSA query

2010/1/14 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com:

 I agree, there is no subjective difference.  But I think there is a logical
 difference, if you are only your current OM why go to work when some other
 OM will enjoy the fruits of that labor?  But by attaching every OM to the
 same observer then there is a reason to make sacrifices such as work to the
 benefit and hopefully overall improvement of the collection of OMs.

I don't think there is a logical difference either. What you make of
this problem is probably the single most important thing in the
philosophy of personal identity.

Suppose in the future you wish to travel by means of destructive
teleportation. There are two types of ticket that you can buy: Economy
Class and First Class. Economy Class costs $500 and guarantees that
the person coming out at the receiving station has the same physical
structure, and hence the same memories and other mental attributes, as
the person who went into the sending station. First Class costs $1000
and is the same as Economy Class, except that it is additionally
guaranteed that the person coming out is the same person as the one
who went in. Which ticket would you buy?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-- 
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.

Re: R/ASSA query