Re: how to define ASSA (was: The ASSA leads to a unique utilitarism)
We're not getting very far with this. Let me put some alternative equivalent versions of the ASSA as I use it. The ASSA is the assumption that the SSSA applies to the question of what our next OM will be. Alternatively: Given an assumed birth OM, the ASSA is the assumption that our current OM is sampled from some absolute measure independent of the birth OM. With the RSSA of course, the measure depends on the previous moment (or the birth moment, if you prefer). The PROJECTION postulate, which I introduce in Why Occams Razor and also better explained in my book explicitly postulates an RSSA-like probability measure. Of course that postulate generates the Born rule, so this is some confirmation of the RSSA. Of course the RSSA depends upon an explicit notion of time, or at very least successor OMs. In my book I introduce the TIME postulate, which is that the OMs experienced by an observer will form an ordered set. The ASSA crowd appear to be free to deny the existence of such subjective time. These so called time deniers would say that the question of next OM is meaningless. Perhaps being a time denier is the only way of making the ASSA consistent. I do not know. Another concern I have about the ASSA, is that it would appear that the sampling of birth moments is drawn from a complex measure. Only the relative measures between successive OMs are probabilities. With the ASSA, however, all OMs seem to need to be drawn from a positive measure (not necessarily normalisable), which would be in contradiction with quantum mechanics. Of course I don't know how to map the ASSA to QM, if indeed it is possible, so this conundrum may be resolvable. Cheers On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 03:30:25PM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote: 1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of next. However, I don't understand the shared by everyone part. Different persons are different programs who cannot exactly represent the observer moment of me. As I see it, an observer moment is a snapshot of the universe taken by my brain. The brain simulates a virtual world based on information from the real world. We don't really experience the real world, we just experience this simulated world. Observer moments for observers should refer to the physical states of the virtual world they live in. Since different observers live in different universes which have different laws of physics, these physical states (= qualia) cannot be compared to each other. We can only talk about an absolute measure for programs (simulated by other programs or not)... Citeren Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Russell Standish wrote: This is actually the SSSA, as originally defined by Bostrom. The ASSA is the SSSA applied to next observer moments. I guess there is a bit of confusing on these terms. I did some searching in the mailing list archives to find out how they were originally defined. First of all SSSA was clearly coined by Hal Finney, not Bostrom. Here's Hal Finney on May 18, 1999: Perhaps we need to distinguish a Strong Self-Sampling Assumption, which is like the SSA but instead of discussing observers, it refers to observer-instants. Followed by Bruno Marchal's reply defining RSSA/ASSA: Perhaps we need to distinguish a Strong Self-Sampling Assumption, which is like the SSA but instead of discussing observers, it refers to observer-instants. Useful distinction, indeed. Nevertheless I do think we should also distinguish between a relative strong SSA and a absolute strong SSA. The idea is that we can only quantify the first-person indeterminism on the set of consistent observer-instants extensions. I mean : consistent with the observers memory of its own (first person) past. Actually now I'm not sure what Bruno really meant. I had assumed that ASSA was the same thing as SSSA, only with the clarification that it's not relative. But if Bruno had really meant to define ASSA as SSSA applied to the next observer moment then I have been using the term ASSA incorrectly. So to sum up, there are two possible meanings for ASSA currently. Does anyone else have an opinion on the matter? Here are the competing definitions: 1. You should reason as if your current observer-moment was randomly selected from a distribution that is shared by everyone and independent of your current observations (hence absolute). 2. You should expect your next observer-moment to be randomly selected from a distribution that is shared by everyone and independent of your current observations. -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au
Re: how to define ASSA (was: The ASSA leads to a unique utilitarism)
Le 05-oct.-07, à 09:14, Wei Dai a écrit : Followed by Bruno Marchal's reply defining RSSA/ASSA: Perhaps we need to distinguish a Strong Self-Sampling Assumption, which is like the SSA but instead of discussing observers, it refers to observer-instants. Useful distinction, indeed. Nevertheless I do think we should also distinguish between a relative strong SSA and a absolute strong SSA. The idea is that we can only quantify the first-person indeterminism on the set of consistent observer-instants extensions. I mean : consistent with the observers memory of its own (first person) past. Actually now I'm not sure what Bruno really meant. I had assumed that ASSA was the same thing as SSSA, only with the clarification that it's not relative. But if Bruno had really meant to define ASSA as SSSA applied to the next observer moment then I have been using the term ASSA incorrectly. It is really a difficult matter. That is partially why I try to find a more direct (arithmetical) interpretation of the OMs, in term of the sigma1 sentences (those having the shape it exist a number having such verifiable property). Those sentences are coding the universal deployement in the arithmetical language, and I intend to try to explain more. I think we have to distinuish already 1-OM, 3-OM, 1-plural-OM, etc. About: 1. You should reason as if your current observer-moment was randomly selected from a distribution that is shared by everyone and independent of your current observations (hence absolute). 2. You should expect your next observer-moment to be randomly selected from a distribution that is shared by everyone and independent of your current observations. I would say before further clarifications: you should expect your next observer-moment to belong to the closer computational history among those which would have reach your current OMs (platonically: no machine can define with certainty which one that current state is). And closer computational history is what I ask the lobian machine to define for me. Hmm... sorry. Again, I repeat it could be that ASSA and RSSA and other views will fit better when we progress catching misunderstandings. Bon Week-end, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
how to define ASSA (was: The ASSA leads to a unique utilitarism)
Russell Standish wrote: This is actually the SSSA, as originally defined by Bostrom. The ASSA is the SSSA applied to next observer moments. I guess there is a bit of confusing on these terms. I did some searching in the mailing list archives to find out how they were originally defined. First of all SSSA was clearly coined by Hal Finney, not Bostrom. Here's Hal Finney on May 18, 1999: Perhaps we need to distinguish a Strong Self-Sampling Assumption, which is like the SSA but instead of discussing observers, it refers to observer-instants. Followed by Bruno Marchal's reply defining RSSA/ASSA: Perhaps we need to distinguish a Strong Self-Sampling Assumption, which is like the SSA but instead of discussing observers, it refers to observer-instants. Useful distinction, indeed. Nevertheless I do think we should also distinguish between a relative strong SSA and a absolute strong SSA. The idea is that we can only quantify the first-person indeterminism on the set of consistent observer-instants extensions. I mean : consistent with the observers memory of its own (first person) past. Actually now I'm not sure what Bruno really meant. I had assumed that ASSA was the same thing as SSSA, only with the clarification that it's not relative. But if Bruno had really meant to define ASSA as SSSA applied to the next observer moment then I have been using the term ASSA incorrectly. So to sum up, there are two possible meanings for ASSA currently. Does anyone else have an opinion on the matter? Here are the competing definitions: 1. You should reason as if your current observer-moment was randomly selected from a distribution that is shared by everyone and independent of your current observations (hence absolute). 2. You should expect your next observer-moment to be randomly selected from a distribution that is shared by everyone and independent of your current observations. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: how to define ASSA (was: The ASSA leads to a unique utilitarism)
1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of next. However, I don't understand the shared by everyone part. Different persons are different programs who cannot exactly represent the observer moment of me. As I see it, an observer moment is a snapshot of the universe taken by my brain. The brain simulates a virtual world based on information from the real world. We don't really experience the real world, we just experience this simulated world. Observer moments for observers should refer to the physical states of the virtual world they live in. Since different observers live in different universes which have different laws of physics, these physical states (= qualia) cannot be compared to each other. We can only talk about an absolute measure for programs (simulated by other programs or not)... Citeren Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Russell Standish wrote: This is actually the SSSA, as originally defined by Bostrom. The ASSA is the SSSA applied to next observer moments. I guess there is a bit of confusing on these terms. I did some searching in the mailing list archives to find out how they were originally defined. First of all SSSA was clearly coined by Hal Finney, not Bostrom. Here's Hal Finney on May 18, 1999: Perhaps we need to distinguish a Strong Self-Sampling Assumption, which is like the SSA but instead of discussing observers, it refers to observer-instants. Followed by Bruno Marchal's reply defining RSSA/ASSA: Perhaps we need to distinguish a Strong Self-Sampling Assumption, which is like the SSA but instead of discussing observers, it refers to observer-instants. Useful distinction, indeed. Nevertheless I do think we should also distinguish between a relative strong SSA and a absolute strong SSA. The idea is that we can only quantify the first-person indeterminism on the set of consistent observer-instants extensions. I mean : consistent with the observers memory of its own (first person) past. Actually now I'm not sure what Bruno really meant. I had assumed that ASSA was the same thing as SSSA, only with the clarification that it's not relative. But if Bruno had really meant to define ASSA as SSSA applied to the next observer moment then I have been using the term ASSA incorrectly. So to sum up, there are two possible meanings for ASSA currently. Does anyone else have an opinion on the matter? Here are the competing definitions: 1. You should reason as if your current observer-moment was randomly selected from a distribution that is shared by everyone and independent of your current observations (hence absolute). 2. You should expect your next observer-moment to be randomly selected from a distribution that is shared by everyone and independent of your current observations. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The ASSA leads to a unique utilitarism
On Oct 3, 12:23 pm, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that beauty is effectively a channel from our unconscious. When we think that something is beautiful (or conversely ugly), some unconscious processing has taken place according to some criterion and presented to the conscious mind on a scale of ugly to beautiful representing how desirable that thing is for the task at hand. Beauty often goes together with simplicity, or with symmetry, as these are very useful concepts evolutionary (finding a genetically superior mate - see literature on the effect of parasites; finding effective theories of the world - simpler is indeed better for various reasons). Cheers The specific things we find beautiful come from our evolutionary history, but that doesn't mean that there aren't objective 'platonic archetypes' . Our conscious experience of beauty is a communication between a mind and a thing. The thing is a *pointer* (reference) to an objective platonic form. Any number of things could potentially play the role of the pointer.The specific thing that triggers a conscious experience of 'beauty' is contingent on our evolutionary history, but the aeathetic value is not in the thing itself, but the platonic archetype it points to. Consciousness is the communication system of the mind and thus the entire sentient experience is based on signs and symbols (representations of things). Signs and Symbols are the true language of reflection and human experience - humans are the symbol using animals.Everything traces back to signs and symbols and thus all assessments of value ultimately trace back to assessments about the aesthetics of signs and symbols. The study of signs and symbols is known as semiotics and the American philosopher Charles Peirce was its champion. Peirce almost grasped 'the secret' so very long ago ;) Signs and symbols control the world, not phrases and laws. ~ Confucius (b 551 BCE), Chinese thinker, social philosopher --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The ASSA leads to a unique utilitarism
Youness Ayaita wrote: Directly speaking: Since all observers must expect to get their next observer moments out of the same ensemble of observer moments, there is no reason to insist on different preferences. Youness, ASSA does not mean what you think, that all observers must expect to get their next observer moments out of the same ensemble of observer moments. What it actually says is that each observer should reason as if his observer moment was randomly selected from some distribution. ASSA doesn't say anything about what to expect for the next observer moment. The type of reasoning you can do with ASSA does not depend on the concept of a next observer moment at all. I think what you have done is created a new philosophical assumption, that says each observer should act (as opposed to reason) as if he expects his next observer moment to be randomly selected from a universal distribution. (This is a bit reminiscent to John Rawls's veil of ignorance.) To avoid confusion, let's call it something else besides ASSA. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The ASSA leads to a unique utilitarism
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 06:11:32PM -0700, Wei Dai wrote: Youness Ayaita wrote: Directly speaking: Since all observers must expect to get their next observer moments out of the same ensemble of observer moments, there is no reason to insist on different preferences. Youness, ASSA does not mean what you think, that all observers must expect to get their next observer moments out of the same ensemble of observer moments. What it actually says is that each observer should reason as if his observer moment was randomly selected from some distribution. This is actually the SSSA, as originally defined by Bostrom. The ASSA is the SSSA applied to next observer moments. I don't think Youness is meaning acting when he says expect. I expect he means reason :) ASSA doesn't say anything about what to expect for the next observer moment. The type of reasoning you can do with ASSA does not depend on the concept of a next observer moment at all. I think what you have done is created a new philosophical assumption, that says each observer should act (as opposed to reason) as if he expects his next observer moment to be randomly selected from a universal distribution. (This is a bit reminiscent to John Rawls's veil of ignorance.) To avoid confusion, let's call it something else besides ASSA. Lets not. Let's use Bostrom's orginal term SSSA for what you think the ASSA is. -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The ASSA leads to a unique utilitarism
Make sure you get the spelling right ;) - Utilitarianism The trouble with Utilitarianism is that it's only concerned with one aspect of values - relations between rational agents. Further, although it's a good approach for practical calculation , it fails to deal with the explanatory abstraction underlying values. The actual abstraction that Utiliarianism is concerned with is 'Liberty' (or Volition), and a theory of morality at the deepest level deals directly with Volition, not Utility. Utility is a secondary concept and Utilitarianism a derivative calculational tool. Volition per se is not the final basis for value by the way. Beauty is. You heard it here first. Aesthetics is the deepest level of value theory and the theory of Liberty (Volition) is merely a sub-set of this. In defense of Beauty as the ultimate basis of value, I present to you: Natasha Vita More :) --- When I think about the decline of the values America was built upon, stemming from The Bill of Rights and the world of Thomas Paine, I long for the underlying essence of beauty. (When one thinks of Naomi Wolf, it is almost impossible not to think about her writings on beauty (thus the connection)) You might say, What the hell does beauty have to do with human behavior, tryanny and politics?! Beauty, according to Le Corbusier, stemming from Pythagoras, is mathematical in symmetry and proportion. Beauty, according to Benjamin Franklin, is found in simple yet carefully orchestrated musical tunes. According to Thomas Jefferson The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. According to Simone Weil, Justice, truth, and beauty are sisters and comrades. Beauty, throughout history, generally has been associated with that which is good. Likewise, the polar opposite of beauty is generally considered to be ugly and is often associated with evil. ... This contrast is epitomized by classic stories such as Sleeping Beauty. Likewise, beauty according to Goethe, from his 1809 Elective Affinities, is 'everywhere a welcome guest'. Moreover, human beauty acts with far greater force on both inner and outer senses, so that he who beholds it is exempt from evil and feels in harmony with himself and with the world.(Wakjawa 2007) An Occasional Letter On The Female Sex (Thomas Paine, August 1775) reflects on bondage and suffering at the cost of beauty. But isn't beauty a deeply valued sense of life that begets the desire for freedom to express and experience? Paine was a [c]hampion of the chaos of change and the beauty of unrestrained libertarianism (Rushton 2006) The London Chronicle reprinted Ben Franklin's Causes of the American Discontents before 1768 (1774). Paine was distressed and wanted to revolt against what he thought was a completely corrupt state. He thought of America as a land were the lovers of freedom were uniting against the tyranny. And that tyranny was an illness, a sickness in human behavior. An unwelcome guest. Ref: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2007-September/037813.html Of course it's all in my top-level domain model of reality here: http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/web/mcrt-domain-model-eternity Just code that design and consult it for the answers to all questions ;) Look at the Platonic classes in the center - first Virtue , then Morality (concerned with Volition) and finally Beauty at the deepest level of abstraction. It's beauty that's at the core of it all, not Volition. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
The ASSA leads to a unique utilitarism
In this message, I neither want to support the ASSA nor utilitarism. But I will argue that the former has remarkable consequences for the latter. To give a short overview of the concepts, I remind you that utilitarism is a doctrine measuring the morality of an action only by its outcome. Those actions are said to be more moral than others if they cause a greater sum of happiness or pleasure (for all people involved). Though this theory seems to be attractive, it has to cope with a lot of problems. Maybe the most fundamental problem is to define how 'happiness' and 'pleasure' are measured: In order to decide which action is the most moral one, we need a 'felicific calculus'. However, it seems that there is no chance to find a unique felicific calculus everyone would agree upon. Until today, there is a lot of arbitrariness: - How do we measure happiness? - How do we compare the happiness of different people? - How do we account for pain and suffering? Which weight is assigned to them? - Even maximizing 'the sum of happiness' in some felicific calculus does not necessarily determine a unique action. Maybe it's possible to increase the happiness of some individuals and to decrease the happiness of other individuals without changing the 'sum of happiness'. What is preferable? Most of us have a mathematical or scientific background. We know that such a situation can lead to an infinity of possible felicific calculi each one defined by arbitrary measures and parameters. In the sciences, one would usually discard a theory that contains so much arbitrariness (philosophy however is not that rigorous). The application of the ASSA can help to surmount these conceptual difficulties. Assuming the ASSA, we are able to define a uniquely determined utilitarism. Nonetheless, the practical problem of deciding which action one has to prefer remains rather unchanged. 1st step: Reducing the number of utilitarisms to the number of human beings. The ASSA states that my next experience is randomly chosen out of all observer moments. For the decision of my action, only those observer moments are of interest that are significantly influenced by my decision (e.g. observer moments in the past aren't). Since my next observer moment can be any of those observer moments, I am driven to a utilitarian action. Utilitarism directly arises whenever an observer wants to act rationally while assuming the ASSA. I could say that utilitarism is 'egoism + ASSA'. 2nd step: The unique utilitarism. Starting from the definition that utilitarism is egoism in combination with the ASSA, I argue that all observers will agree upon the same action. At first you might think that the preferred action depends on the individual preferences of the deciding individual. For example, if I was suffering from hunger, I could perform an action to minimize hunger in the world. But this is a wrong conclusion. When I experience another observer moment, I am no longer affected by my former needs and preferences. Directly speaking: Since all observers must expect to get their next observer moments out of the same ensemble of observer moments, there is no reason to insist on different preferences. But there is still one problem left. Different observers have different states of knowledge about the consequences of a potential action. In theory, we can exclude this problem by defining utilitarism as the rational decision of a hypothetic observer that knows all the consequences of all potential actions (of course while assuming the ASSA). It's a nice feature of the ASSA that it naturally leads to a theory of morality. The RSSA does not seem to provide such a result. Though, I'd like to have similar concepts out of the RSSA (according to Stathis, I belong to the RSSA camp). Youness Ayaita --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
