I agree with Eric Hawthorne. Much of what's said here is unintelligible to
me. I think that most of the contributors to this list are outstanding
intellects that want to enlighten, not obfuscate, and have some fascinating
ideas. I'd like to be able to decipher what you're saying.
Norman
-
[This is a repost, I didn't see it come out before. I have a sinking
feeling that the first URL contains the magic letters s - c - r - i -
b - e and that is triggering some kind of filter! If so that is
rather inconvenient given that this is one of the main list archive
sites. Hopefully this
But I guess the problems in this discussion is the lack of precise
definition of the terms and of the philosophical framework.
This is where I most often feel like speaking up on this amazing list.
I don't have enough math to really understand things like the Speed
Prior, etc., but I do think
Here is a start at a glossary:
UD - The Universal Dovetailer, a hypothetical system for
running all possible computer programs. See UDA.
UDA - The Universal Dovetailer Argument of Bruno Marchal, which
concludes that we must derive the laws of physics from computer science.
See
One correction, in the descriptions below I should have said multiverse
for all of them instead of universe. The distinction between the SSA
and the SSSA is not multiverse vs universe, it is observers vs observer-
moments. I'll send out an updated copy when I get some more links and/or
Hal Finney wrote:
One correction, in the descriptions below I should have said multiverse
for all of them instead of universe. The distinction between the SSA
and the SSSA is not multiverse vs universe, it is observers vs observer-
moments. I'll send out an updated copy when I get some more
By the way, for anyone who wants to learn more about the whole issue of the
self-sampling assumption in general, I recommend this website:
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/
The author of the site, Nick Bostrom, (who I think is a member of this list,
or used to be) also wrote a whole book on
But one might also have to take into account the absolute measure on
all-observer moments that I suggest above, so that if there is a very low
absolute probability of a brain that can suggest a future observer-moment
which is very similar to my current one
Sorry, meant to say a very low
Jesse Mazer writes:
In your definition of the ASSA, why do you define it in terms of your next
observer moment?
The ASSA and the RSSA were historically defined as competing views.
I am not 100% sure that I have the ASSA right, in that it doesn't seem
too different from the SSSA. (BTW I have
Hal,
Waht about a definition of Observer-Moment?
That would surely help me...
Thanks,
-Joao
Hal Finney wrote:
Jesse Mazer writes:
In your definition of the ASSA, why do you define it in terms of your next
observer moment?
The ASSA and the RSSA were historically defined as competing
Here are some more:
QM - Quantum Mechanics, our best current theory for the physics
of the small.
GR - General Relativity, our best current theory for the physics
of the large.
TM - Turing Machine, a formal model of computation.
UTM - Universal Turing Machine, a type of Turing Machine that can
Hal,
Waht about a definition of Observer-Moment?
That would surely help me...
Thanks,
-Joao
I was mostly sticking to acronyms, otherwise it becomes a FAQ. Doing
observer-moment also requires defining observer. Here is a try at it:
Observer - A subsystem of the multiverse with qualities
I have a feeling some of these points of view are not falsifiable (and
therefore somewhat meaningless). An individual that is about to
experience a QM immortality episode can't perform additional experiments
to answer (philosophical) questions about his identity. The only
observable is the
Not much, because of the effect of decoherence.
David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
I have a feeling some of these points of view are not falsifiable (and
therefore somewhat meaningless). An individual that is about to
experience a QM immortality episode can't perform additional experiments
to
This issue was canvassed under the name no cul-de-sac conjecture in
the list. Bruno claims to have proved this conjecture in his modal
world logic. I tried to do this using a more conventional formulation
of QM - it seemed to be related to unitarity of quantum processes -
but I have to say I
15 matches
Mail list logo
