Re: normalization

2000-01-18 Thread Jacques M. Mallah
On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The RSSA is not another way of viewing the world; it is a category error. I use the RSSA as the basis for calculating what I call the relative probability, in this group the first person probability, or,

interpretation of TM (Turing mechanics)

1999-11-27 Thread Jacques M. Mallah
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Russell Standish wrote: There may be a problem with this Universal Prior scheme if just any interpretation of a bitstring is allowed. (eg one can somehow interpret the string containing an infinite number of zeros as encoding Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet). Because of

Re: zombie wives

1999-08-30 Thread Jacques M. Mallah
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Russell Standish wrote: I use the terms SSA, ASSA, RSSA only because others on the list insist on using them. In my opinion the 'ASSA' is a tautology and not an assumption, while the 'RSSA' is an error. ASSA != SSA. ASSA makes explicit the sample set over which

Re: zombie wives

1999-08-18 Thread Jacques M. Mallah
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Russell Standish wrote: [Jack wrote] What I am trying to do is to look at the consequences of the claims made by the quantum suicide camp. The claim is that consciousness 'flows into' possible continuations of oneself and is, in effect, conserved as long as such

Any hope for Higgo?

1999-05-19 Thread Jacques M Mallah
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Higgo James wrote: Jacques, nobody denies that our measure decreases with time. Do you deny that there is a billion-year Jacques somewhere out there in the infinite universe? Are you trying to pass the disagreement off as some kind of semantics? It's not. Of

Re: who's on 1st

1999-04-29 Thread Jacques M Mallah
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, Gilles HENRI wrote: But COMP is (if I understood it correctly) a stronger hypothesis: it is that at some finite level, you could reproduce or duplicate EXACTLY your conscious state, or at least you could simulate it to an arbitrary degree of accuracy (which is already

Re: Jacques, champion of truth, justice and the American way

1999-01-27 Thread Jacques M Mallah
On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 09:51:53AM -, Higgo James wrote: Jacques, Darwin has a lot of work to do before I become a slave to my genes, which is what you advocate. I don't say consciousness jumps magically. Our consciousness, like anything, exists in the same form in very many sets of

Re: Quantum Time Travel

2000-02-23 Thread Jacques M. Mallah
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since I do not buy the concept of objective reality, I do not Then you are no better than a Copenhagenist. It's precisely the fact that non-belief in objective

zombie wives

1999-08-12 Thread Jacques M. Mallah
referring to t0 | | t1 T / \ H / \ t2 / / \ | | \ t3 Y R B Assume that all three branches occur (two copying events). Gilles Henri wrote: With the

Re: who's on 1st

1999-04-22 Thread Jacques M Mallah
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Gilles HENRI wrote: (note: I wrote) The point is that a human brain implements some digital computations. An analog system is perfectly capable of implementing digital computations; usually only for a certain set of initial conditions. The basic unit which is

Re: tautology

1999-09-15 Thread Jacques M. Mallah
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Russell Standish wrote: [JM wrote] Obviously you don't understand. With the ASSA, it is always possible to find the conditional probability of an observation given a suitable condition. Choosing a condition and asking a question about it changes nothing about

Re: Doom2k

1999-12-12 Thread Jacques M. Mallah
On Tue, 7 Dec 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Suppose there are two possibilities: you live in a universe where there will be 100 billion people total, or in a universe where there will be 100 trillion people total, and a priori you think there is a 50-50 chance which one is the case. You

Re: tautology

1999-11-22 Thread Jacques M. Mallah
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Russell Standish wrote: Given the measure distribution of observation-moments, as a function on observables (such as Y1 and X), p(Y1|X) = p(Y1 and X) / p(X) Not so hard, was it? [Note that here X was the observation of being Jack Mallah, and Y1 was

Re: who's on 1st

1999-04-21 Thread Jacques M Mallah
On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Gilles HENRI wrote: A computer has a number of physical degrees of freedom (physical entropy) enormously greater than the number of its computational degrees of freedom (memory and processor size); that allows to reproduce the same computational complexity with many

Re: zombie wives

1999-08-26 Thread Jacques M. Mallah
I use the terms SSA, ASSA, RSSA only because others on the list insist on using them. In my opinion the 'ASSA' is a tautology and not an assumption, while the 'RSSA' is an error. On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Russell Standish wrote: Now this implies that an individual's measure decreases the

Re: Decision theory

1998-12-30 Thread Jacques M Mallah
On Tue, 29 Dec 1998, Wei Dai wrote: I realize now the problem with decision theory is really about the absence of free parameters in a physical theory, and the problem is practical, not metaphysical. So let me redescribe it. Decision theory depends on a physical theory to compute the

Re: tautology

1999-10-25 Thread 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

Re: Q Wars Episode 10^9: the Phantom Measure

1999-06-01 Thread Jacques M Mallah
On 31 xxx -1, Marchal wrote: I have probably missed something (in the 10^9 episodes!), but I still cannot figure out why should my measure decrease with time. At least, unlike some q-immorters, you admit that you do not think measure decreases with time. At least with comp, it

Re: minimal theory of consciousness

1999-07-18 Thread Jacques M Mallah
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you think this variant would work. Suppose that there are multiple possible distinct universes, forming a set U of all possible universes, and a probability measure P() defined over elements of U, which tells how much contribution that universe

Re: tautology

1999-11-04 Thread Jacques M. Mallah
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Russell Standish wrote: [JM wrote] [BTW I am getting tired of RS omitting the attribution] ^^^ Blame my email software. I almost always leave the .signatures in to make it obvious who I'm responding to. Since your

Re: valuable errors

1999-04-14 Thread Jacques M Mallah
On 14 xxx -1, Marchal wrote: OK, so you agree that a computationalist could, in case it is technologically feasible, use teletransport to move herself. Remember that the original is destroyed, and reconstituted elsewhere. I guess you agree that if someone survives teletransport, she will

Re: Causation, Indexical facts Self-sampling

1999-04-16 Thread Jacques M Mallah
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Nick Bostrom wrote: The Self-Sampling Assumption (SSA), the idea that you should reason as if you were a random sample form the set of all observers, underlies many of the discussions we have had on this list. About half a year ago I discovered some paradoxical

Re: tautology

1999-09-06 Thread Jacques M. Mallah
On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Russell Standish wrote: Then maybe I misunderstood you. A tautology is a term with redundant parts, ie it is equivalent to some subset of itself. I took your statement that ASSA is a tautology to mean that ASSA is

Re: Q Wars Episode 10^9: the Phantom Measure

1999-05-30 Thread Jacques M Mallah
On Sun, 23 May 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jacques M Mallah, [EMAIL PROTECTED], writes: It is surely true that in the MWI, old copies of you-like beings will exist. It is also true that they will be of very small measure, and that the effective probability of being one of those

Heed Clarification on MW

1999-12-12 Thread Jacques M. Mallah
On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Russell Standish wrote: In a MW or all-universe model, all your decisions can do is to change the percentage of people-like-you who do certain things, or equivalently the percentage of universes in which people-like-you have taken various actions. I disagree with

Re: valuable errors

1999-04-13 Thread Jacques M Mallah
On 13 Mar -1, Marchal wrote: Jacques M Mallah wrote: Yes, that's why I've enjoyed my discussions with Wei Dai. My problem is with what I see as the trivial errors that are so entrenched in many of the opinions. Could you be a little more explicit ? Could you give examples

Re: implementations

1999-07-10 Thread Jacques M Mallah
On 9 xxx -1, Marchal wrote: Oh ! It could help me if you answer the following question: Suppose you are right and you solve the implementation problem (in your sense). So you get a correctly implemented computer. This one is still emulable by a Turing Machine, correctly programmed, OK ?

Re: Implementation

1999-07-31 Thread Jacques M Mallah
On 27 Mar -1, Marchal wrote: Jacques Mallah wrote: Bruno, I think it is now abundently clear that Maudlin's paper does not rule out physical computationalism, and other people on the list have seen that as well. Clear would be enough. Abundently clear is a little to much. OK,

Re: zombie wives

1999-08-24 Thread Jacques M. Mallah
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Jacques M. Mallah wrote: Life will continue but with decreasing measure. Still it seems that you can make a refutable prediction: namely, that the universe we are in is not optimised for us to be here, but is optimised to give you a long lifetime. Basically you

Re: Turing vs math

1999-10-26 Thread Jacques M. Mallah
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Juergen Schmidhuber wrote: Jacques Mallah wrote: A continuous structure is a perfectly good mathematical structure, but no Turing based scheme can include it. Why assume non-computable stuff without compelling reason? Shaved by Occam's razor. On the

Re: Quantum suicide

1999-03-26 Thread Jacques M Mallah
Hello. Max, you haven't responded to the arguments I've made against it. (e.g. http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/msg00287.html, http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/msg00306.html, http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/msg00313.html,

RE: Quantum Physics

1999-07-10 Thread Jacques M Mallah
On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Higgo James wrote: So why don't we observe vacuum collapses, Jacques? I guess it never occurred to you that the vacuum might be stable? - - - - - - - Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Graduate Student / Many Worlder /