2009/2/10 Jack Mallah :
> This sort of talk about "random sampling" and "luck" is misleading and is
> exactly why I broke down the roles of effective probability into the four
> categories I did in the paper.
>
> If you are considering future versions of yourself, in the MWI sense, there
> is
Bruno
Thanks for the corrections - not only did I improve my understanding
of the thesis in closely translating the language, but had enormous
fun! I am up to the diagrammatic part and will stop here for the time
being, to catch my breath and also to try and understand the Jaques
Mallah th
--- On Tue, 2/10/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> It seems that the disagreement may be one about personal identity. It is not
> clear to me from your paper whether you accept what Derek Parfit calls the
> "reductionist" theory of personal identity. Consider the following experiment:
>
> There
I wrote it for my friends, but feel free to criticise!
http://rosyatrandom.livejournal.com/35445.html
_
Perhaps it's time I had another go at explaining all that weird stuff I
believe in and why.
Well, for those few that don't know, I reckon that all possible u
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 2009/2/10 Jack Mallah :
>
>
>> This sort of talk about "random sampling" and "luck" is misleading and is
>> exactly why I broke down the roles of effective probability into the four
>> categories I did in the paper.
>>
>> If you are considering future versions of
On 10 Feb 2009, at 18:44, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> 2009/2/10 Jack Mallah :
>>
>>
>>> This sort of talk about "random sampling" and "luck" is misleading
>>> and is exactly why I broke down the roles of effective probability
>>> into the four categories I did in th
Not too much here that would raise hackles on the everything-list,
but (IMHO) for the first sentence--
> Perhaps it's time I had another go at explaining all that weird
> stuff I believe in and why.
The word "believe" can mean many things but in my parlance it means
to attach a very high c
Kim,
> Thanks for the corrections - not only did I improve my understanding
> of the thesis in closely translating the language, but had enormous
> fun! I am up to the diagrammatic part and will stop here for the
> time being, to catch my breath and also to try and understand the
> Jaques
I did think about what word to use there - and while I don't _believe_ believe
it, I would be _very_ surprised to be proved wrong :D . And besides, any
other word seems like a bit of a fudge.
--
- Did you ever hear of "The Seattle Seven"?
- Mmm.
- That was me... and six othe
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 10 Feb 2009, at 18:44, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>> 2009/2/10 Jack Mallah :
>>>
>>>
This sort of talk about "random sampling" and "luck" is misleading
and is exactly why I broke down the roles of effective probability
into
I agree. They are both pointers to the same abstract computation.
--
- Did you ever hear of "The Seattle Seven"?
- Mmm.
- That was me... and six other guys.
2009/2/10 Brent Meeker
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > On 10 Feb 2009, at 18:44, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >
> >> St
2009/2/11 Jack Mallah :
>
> --- On Tue, 2/10/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> It seems that the disagreement may be one about personal identity. It is not
>> clear to me from your paper whether you accept what Derek Parfit calls the
>> "reductionist" theory of personal identity. Consider the f
>> As the observer you know all this information, and you look at the
>> clock and see that it is 5:00 PM. What can you conclude from this and
>> what should you expect? To me, it seems that you must conclude that
>> you are currently either A1 or A2, and that in one minute you will be
>> B, with
I'm with Mike and Brent.
Bruno, giving A1 and A2 mirrors which would show different stuff
violates Stathis' assumption of running the _same_ computation - you
can't go out of the system.
And your remark that we should differentiate infinite identical platonic
computations confuses me - it see
Kim,
>> Günther recommends recently the book "Eveything Must Go" by Ladyman
>> et al. This looks like heavy going but seems like a good and a
>> relevant tome to get into, possibly circling around the mechanist
>> idea. Do you also recommend it?
The book does not concern the mechanist thes
Dear John,
> JM: 'evolutionary' is 'relational' anyway originated in 'human mind
> capabilities' - D.Bohm: "there are no numbers in nature". (Not arguing
> against Bruno, who IMO stands for "nature is IN numbers")
Well yes, that is the interesting question. But if you say that there
are no nu
--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Also I still don't understand how I could be 30 years old and not 4, there
> are a lot more OM of 4 than 30... it is the argument you use for 1000 years
> old, I don't see why it can hold for 30 ?
Quentin, why would the measure of 4 year olds be "a
--- On Tue, 2/10/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 2009/2/11 Jack Mallah :
> > 2) If the data saved to the disk is only based on A1
> (e.g. discarding any errors that A2 might have made) then
> one could say that A1 is the same person as B, while A2 is
> not. This is causal differentiation.
>
>
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 07:07:50PM -0800, Jack Mallah wrote:
>
> That actually doesn't matter - causation is defined in terms of
> counterfactuals. If - then, considering what happens at that moment of
> saving the data. If x=1 and y=1, and I copy the contents of x to z, that is
> not the sa
Jack Mallah wrote:
> --- On Tue, 2/10/09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> 2009/2/11 Jack Mallah :
>>> 2) If the data saved to the disk is only based on A1
>> (e.g. discarding any errors that A2 might have made) then
>> one could say that A1 is the same person as B, while A2 is
>> not. This is cau
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 06:43:11PM -0800, Jack Mallah wrote:
>
> --- On Mon, 2/9/09, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > Also I still don't understand how I could be 30 years old and not 4, there
> > are a lot more OM of 4 than 30... it is the argument you use for 1000 years
> > old, I don't see why it
2009/2/11 Jack Mallah :
>> > 3) If I am defined as an observer-moment, then I am
>> part of either A1 or A2, not even the whole thing - just my
>> current experience. This is the most conservative
>> definition and thus may be the least misleading.
>>
>> This is the way I think of it, at least
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 2009/2/11 Jack Mallah :
>
3) If I am defined as an observer-moment, then I am
>>> part of either A1 or A2, not even the whole thing - just my
>>> current experience. This is the most conservative
>>> definition and thus may be the least misleading.
>>>
>>> This
23 matches
Mail list logo
