Re: tautology

[Jacques M. Mallah]

On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Russell Standish wrote:
 The measure of Jack Mallah is irrelevant to this situation. The
 probability of Jack Mallah seeing Joe Schmoe with a large age is
 proportional to Joe Schmoe's measure - because - Joe Schmoe is
 independent of Jack Mallah. However, Jack Mallah is clearly not
 independent of Jack Mallah, and predictions of the probability of Jack
 Mallah seeing a Jack Mallah with large age cannot be made with the
 existing assumptions of ASSA. The claim is that RSSA has the
 additional assumptions required.

That's total BS.
I'll review, although I've said it so many times, how effective
probabilities work in the ASSA.  You can take this as a definition of
ASSA, so you can NOT deny that this is how things would work if the ASSA
is true.  The only thing you could try, is to claim that the ASSA is
false.
The effective probability of an observation with characteristic
'X' is (measure of observations with 'X') / (total measure).
The conditional effective probability that an observation has
characteristic Y, given that it has characteristic X, is
p(Y|X) = (measure of observations with X and with Y) / (measure with X).
OK, these definitions are true in general.  Let's apply them to
the situation in question.
'X' = being Jack Mallah and seeing an age for Joe Shmoe and for
Jack Mallah, and seeing that Joe also sees both ages and sees that Jack
sees both ages.
Suppose that objectively (e.g. to a 3rd party) Jack and Joe have
their ages drawn from the same type of distribution.  (i.e. they are the
same species).
Case 1: 'Y1' = the age seen for Joe is large.
Case 2: 'Y2' = the age seen for Jack is large.
Clearly P(Y1|X) = P(Y2|X).

 - - - - - - -
  Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
   Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
I know what no one else knows - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/

Re: Turing vs math

[Marchal]

Juergen Schmidhuber wrote:

 In absence of
evidence to the contrary we assume that the presence of your consciousness
(whatever that may be) is detectable by a computable process, namely, the
one employed by you, the observer, who decides that he exists, via some
sort of computation taking place as part of the evolution of his universe.

Sorry but I don't detect the presence of my consciousness still less by
a computable process. I'm afraid you confuse 1-person description of 
itself
and 3th-person description of its body, at some level.

... nor do I decide that I exist. What could that mean ?



A recent question by hal, and Juergen reply:
 Which programs count and which ones don't?  

Those that compute your universe AND NOTHING ELSE.

The problem is that with comp there is no meaning to the
expression your universe. This follows from PE-omega + Occam razor, or
in a more deep and informative way from PE-omega + Movie-argument.

I am still waiting your reply for the PE-omega post I send you 
months ago :-)

Bruno