On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 01:35:10AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Is not the SSA “the idea that you should reason as if you were a
random sample form the set of all observers .
Yes.
I do seem to be rehashing some of Mallah’s argument
(http://www.higgo.com/qti/Mallah.htm ) but even in
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 01:22:23AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
My point is that “the whole human history timeline” assumes the Newtonian
(Laplacean Demon) idea that all events are observable by some hypothetical
entity that is exterior to the universe (aka God). Do I need to knock
Hi Russell,
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 3:40 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 01:22:23AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
My point is that “the whole human history timeline” assumes
Hi Russell,
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 3:32 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 01:35:10AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Is not the SSA “the idea that you should reason as if you were
On 09 May 2011, at 05:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2011 7:53 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I think that the ‘Surprise 20 Questions’ idea that John Wheeler
considered in his famous ‘It from Bit’ paper might be more
appropriate. Any OM that is a possible continuance of another OM
must
plus
the computational intractability of simulating arbitrarily precisely
physical systems are some of the reasons.
Onward!
Stephen
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 6:27 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On Sat, May 07
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 03:44:48AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
But surely you can see that this “linear human history” is one
that can only be defined from the assumption that “all human history”
can be determined. That’s the rub, it assumes the ability to know
something that requires the
for the electromagnetic radiation
emitted by a hot object.
Onward,
Stephen
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:11 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On 09 May 2011, at 05:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2011 7:53 PM, Stephen Paul
: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:15 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On 09 May 2011, at 04:53, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,
Did you see the rest of that post?
How does my sketch (replicated here) work out as a probability
Hi Russell,
Could you point me toward some discussion of the method to relativize the
argument?
Onward!
Stephen
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 5:35 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 03:44:48AM
. The hypostases Bp Dp (or Bp Dt) does
obey a kind of quantum logic, which might make the first person
(plural) white rabbits vanishing away.
Bruno
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:15 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On 09 May
Hi Bruno,
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:57 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On 09 May 2011, at 13:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
But this is problematic since dreams are 3p describable by the diary
On 09 May 2011, at 13:20, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Could you elaborate more on your statement? One reason that the
world is not thought to be Newtonian is that in a Newtonian universe
our atoms would not be stable. Max Planck was driven to postulate
his constant because
On 5/8/2011 10:22 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bent,
*From:* meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
*Sent:* Monday, May 09, 2011 12:31 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On 5/8/2011 9:19 PM, Stephen
On 5/9/2011 5:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
in that I usually have some memory of what I was dreaming once I
awake that I can encode in using symbols for communications to
others. It could be that the reported difficulty of becoming aware of
the truth that one is dreaming, while one is in fact
On 09 May 2011, at 18:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/9/2011 5:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
in that I usually have some memory of what I was dreaming once I
awake that I can encode in using symbols for communications to
others. It could be that the reported difficulty of becoming aware
of the
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 09:17:38AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Having an experience includes experiencing duration and sequence.
Russell posited that the OM could be defined as the “state of a
machine” in
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg14307.html
Why would
: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 03:44:48AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
But surely you can see that this “linear human history” is one
that can only be defined from the assumption that “all human history”
can be determined. That’s the rub, it assumes the ability
Hi Brent,
From: meekerdb
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:17 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On 5/8/2011 10:22 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bent,
From: meekerdb
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:31 AM
To: everything-list
Hi Russell,
Right! The OM would be the lower bound on a duration spanning any
experience.
Onward!
Stephen
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 5:57 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 09:17:38AM -0700
On 5/9/2011 3:22 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
*From:* meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
*Sent:* Monday, May 09, 2011 12:17 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On 5/8/2011 10:22 PM, Stephen
On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 12:57:25AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
HI Russell,
I don’t get it!
Surely you can see that the original doomsday argument does not depend
on details of who your parents might be?
Cheers
--
On 5/8/2011 7:53 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I think that the ‘Surprise 20 Questions’ idea that John Wheeler
considered in his famous ‘It from Bit’ paper might be more
appropriate. Any OM that is a possible continuance of another OM must
not contain information that is inconsistent with
errata. damn spell checker...
From: Stephen Paul King
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:19 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
Hi Brent,
No, the Newtonian case would be such that the logical non-contradiction
requirement would be trivial
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 12:19:28AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
My argument is that the traditional notion of a measure does not apply
because we cannot assume the simultaneous co-reliability of OMs, thus the DA
is an artifact of misapplied statistics.
The traditional DA does not
Hi Bent,
From: meekerdb
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:31 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On 5/8/2011 9:19 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
No, the Newtonian case would be such that the logical
non-contradiction requirement
Hi Russell,
**
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:03 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 12:19:28AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
My argument is that the traditional notion of a measure does
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:32:02PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Folks,
I have been thinking hard about the Doomsday Argument and a
question struck me. Why does it seems that genomic heredity does not
seem to play any role in the determination of what body, location,
etc. one
Dear Russell,
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:27 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:32:02PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Folks,
I have been thinking hard about the Doomsday Argument
2011/5/6 Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
Dear Russell,
*From:* Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
*Sent:* Friday, May 06, 2011 7:27 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:32:02PM -0400, Stephen
Hi Quentin,
I seem to need to read up on the prior discussion! I’ll look for the wiki
article.
Onward!
Stephen
From: Quentin Anciaux
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 5:52 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
2011/5/6 Stephen Paul King stephe
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 04:33:04PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
My physical body has myopia and certain other physical characteristics
that are consistent with some finite set of possible parents. My daughter has
similar physical characteristics, as well as artistic ability that
HI Russell,
I don’t get it!
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 8:52 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 04:33:04PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
My physical body has myopia
Hi Folks,
I have been thinking hard about the Doomsday Argument and a question struck
me. Why does it seems that genomic heredity does not seem to play any role in
the determination of what body, location, etc. one discovers one’s 1p
(subjective sense of self in the world) to exist in.
34 matches
Mail list logo
