Re: how to define ASSA (was: The ASSA leads to a unique utilitarism)
We're not getting very far with this. Let me put some alternative equivalent versions of the ASSA as I use it. The ASSA is the assumption that the SSSA applies to the question of what our "next OM" will be. Alternatively: Given an assumed "birth OM", the ASSA is the assumption that our current OM is sampled from some absolute measure independent of the birth OM. With the RSSA of course, the measure depends on the previous moment (or the birth moment, if you prefer). The PROJECTION postulate, which I introduce in "Why Occams Razor" and also better explained in my book explicitly postulates an RSSA-like probability measure. Of course that postulate generates the Born rule, so this is some confirmation of the RSSA. Of course the RSSA depends upon an explicit notion of time, or at very least successor OMs. In my book I introduce the TIME postulate, which is that the OMs experienced by an observer will form an ordered set. The ASSA crowd appear to be free to deny the existence of such subjective time. These so called "time deniers" would say that the question of "next OM" is meaningless. Perhaps being a time denier is the only way of making the ASSA consistent. I do not know. Another concern I have about the ASSA, is that it would appear that the sampling of birth moments is drawn from a complex measure. Only the relative measures between successive OMs are probabilities. With the ASSA, however, all OMs seem to need to be drawn from a positive measure (not necessarily normalisable), which would be in contradiction with quantum mechanics. Of course I don't know how to map the ASSA to QM, if indeed it is possible, so this "conundrum" may be resolvable. Cheers On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 03:30:25PM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote: > > 1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of "next". > However, I don't understand the "shared by everyone" part. Different > persons are different programs who cannot exactly represent the > "observer moment" of me. > > As I see it, an observer moment is a snapshot of the universe taken by > my brain. The brain simulates a virtual world based on information from > the real world. We don't really experience the real world, we just > experience this simulated world. Observer moments for observers should > refer to the physical states of the virtual world they live in. Since > different observers live in different universes which have different > laws of physics, these physical states (= qualia) cannot be compared to > each other. > > We can only talk about an absolute measure for programs (simulated by > other programs or not)... > > > > Citeren Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Russell Standish wrote: > >> This is actually the SSSA, as originally defined by Bostrom. The ASSA > >> is the SSSA applied to "next observer moments". > > > > I guess there is a bit of confusing on these terms. I did some searching in > > the mailing list archives to find out how they were originally defined. > > First of all SSSA was clearly coined by Hal Finney, not Bostrom. Here's Hal > > Finney on May 18, 1999: > > > >> Perhaps we need to distinguish a "Strong Self-Sampling Assumption", > >> which is like the SSA but instead of discussing "observers", it refers to > >> "observer-instants". > > > > Followed by Bruno Marchal's reply defining RSSA/ASSA: > > > >> >Perhaps we need to distinguish a "Strong Self-Sampling Assumption", > >> >which is like the SSA but instead of discussing "observers", it refers to > >> >"observer-instants". > >> > >> Useful distinction, indeed. > >> > >> Nevertheless I do think we should also distinguish between > >> a relative strong SSA and a absolute strong SSA. > >> The idea is that we can only quantify the first-person > >> indeterminism on the set of consistent observer-instants > >> extensions. I mean : consistent with the observers memory of its own > >> (first person) past. > > > > Actually now I'm not sure what Bruno really meant. I had assumed that ASSA > > was the same thing as SSSA, only with the clarification that it's not > > relative. But if Bruno had really meant to define ASSA as "SSSA applied to > > the next observer moment" then I have been using the term "ASSA" > > incorrectly. > > > > So to sum up, there are two possible meanings for ASSA currently. Does > > anyone else have an opinion on the matter? Here are the competing > > definitions: > > > > 1. You should reason as if your current observer-moment was randomly > > selected from a distribution that is shared by everyone and independent of > > your current observations (hence "absolute"). > > > > 2. You should expect your next observer-moment to be randomly selected from > > a distribution that is shared by everyone and independent of your current > > observations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics
Re: how to define ASSA
Le 05-oct.-07, à 19:56, Brent Meeker a écrit : > > Saibal Mitra wrote: >> 1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of "next". >> However, I don't understand the "shared by everyone" part. Different >> persons are different programs who cannot exactly represent the >> "observer moment" of me. >> >> As I see it, an observer moment is a snapshot of the universe taken by >> my brain. The brain simulates a virtual world based on information >> from >> the real world. We don't really experience the real world, we just >> experience this simulated world. Observer moments for observers should >> refer to the physical states of the virtual world they live in. Since >> different observers live in different universes which have different >> laws of physics, these physical states (= qualia) cannot be compared >> to >> each other. > > How do you know they live in different universes? The great agreement > among observers is what leads us to believe in an objective world. I agree. > It appears that it is more economical (both ontologically and > algorithmically) to explain the agreement by supposing there is an > objective world as described by physics. I agree. And with comp, that objective physics cannot be fundamental. It has to be derived from numbers (or combinators, etc.) The objective physics is the objective sum on machine's ignorance and what is invariant there. The physical is an aspect of the larger objective machine first person plenitude. It seems to me this follows (not necessarily easily!) from UDA. > In which case the observer moments are derivative from the objective > world - that's what makes it a more efficient hypothesis. You have not shown that. You talk like if the physicists have solved the mind-body problem. Assuming comp the mind-body relation is no more one-one. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: how to define ASSA (was: The ASSA leads to a unique utilitarism)
Le 05-oct.-07, à 09:14, Wei Dai a écrit : > Followed by Bruno Marchal's reply defining RSSA/ASSA: > >>> Perhaps we need to distinguish a "Strong Self-Sampling Assumption", >>> which is like the SSA but instead of discussing "observers", it >>> refers to >>> "observer-instants". >> >> Useful distinction, indeed. >> >> Nevertheless I do think we should also distinguish between >> a relative strong SSA and a absolute strong SSA. >> The idea is that we can only quantify the first-person >> indeterminism on the set of consistent observer-instants >> extensions. I mean : consistent with the observers memory of its own >> (first person) past. > > Actually now I'm not sure what Bruno really meant. I had assumed that > ASSA > was the same thing as SSSA, only with the clarification that it's not > relative. But if Bruno had really meant to define ASSA as "SSSA > applied to > the next observer moment" then I have been using the term "ASSA" > incorrectly. It is really a difficult matter. That is partially why I try to find a more direct (arithmetical) interpretation of the OMs, in term of the sigma1 sentences (those having the shape "it exist a number having such verifiable property"). Those sentences are coding the universal deployement in the arithmetical language, and I intend to try to explain more. I think we have to distinuish already 1-OM, 3-OM, 1-plural-OM, etc. About: > 1. You should reason as if your current observer-moment was randomly > selected from a distribution that is shared by everyone and > independent of > your current observations (hence "absolute"). > 2. You should expect your next observer-moment to be randomly selected > from > a distribution that is shared by everyone and independent of your > current > observations. I would say before further clarifications: you should expect your next observer-moment to belong to the "closer" computational history among those which would have reach your current OMs (platonically: no machine can define with certainty which one that current state is). And "closer computational history" is what I ask the lobian machine to define for me. Hmm... sorry. Again, I repeat it could be that ASSA and RSSA and other views will fit better when we progress catching misunderstandings. Bon Week-end, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: how to define ASSA
Of course, we all live in the same universe in the sense that we are all simulated by brains that exist in this universe (described approximately by the Standard Model and General Relativity). The problem is how to define the observer moments rigorously at least in principle. It is undeniable that we experience a the world that our brains are simulating and not the real world. We experience the real world only indirectly. If you touch a hot object and burn your finger then you experiencing the pain is really an event that happens in the virtual world simulated by your brain. Your brain simply uses the results of the simulation to compute what action to take in the real world (and the simulation will then be updated accordingly). The burning sensation exists only in the simulated world, not in the real world. Of course, you can infer that the object must have been hot. So, it seems to be more sensible to me to say that an observer moment is itself an entire universe (= program) in some state. This looks equivalent to specifying the exact state a brain is in, but the brain contains more information than is accessible to the observer. We really have to extract the program the brain is running from the brain and use that to define OMs, otherwise an OM becomes an inherently ambiguous concept (e.g. where does the brain end, do the nerves in my feet also count? etc. etc.). One can simply define an observer as some program and look at the entire multiverse to seek out these programs that are in such and such state. Then one adds up all the absolute measures to obtain the total probability that the program is experiencing that state. One would then expect that it is likely that a program defining a human observer is simulated by a brain in a universe described by the Standard Model. citeren Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Saibal Mitra wrote: >> 1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of "next". >> However, I don't understand the "shared by everyone" part. Different >> persons are different programs who cannot exactly represent the >> "observer moment" of me. >> >> As I see it, an observer moment is a snapshot of the universe taken by >> my brain. The brain simulates a virtual world based on information from >> the real world. We don't really experience the real world, we just >> experience this simulated world. Observer moments for observers should >> refer to the physical states of the virtual world they live in. Since >> different observers live in different universes which have different >> laws of physics, these physical states (= qualia) cannot be compared to >> each other. > > How do you know they live in different universes? The great > agreement among observers is what leads us to believe in an objective > world. It appears that it is more economical (both ontologically and > algorithmically) to explain the agreement by supposing there is an > objective world as described by physics. In which case the observer > moments are derivative from the objective world - that's what makes > it a more efficient hypothesis. > > Brent Meeker > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: how to define ASSA
Saibal Mitra wrote: > 1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of "next". > However, I don't understand the "shared by everyone" part. Different > persons are different programs who cannot exactly represent the > "observer moment" of me. > > As I see it, an observer moment is a snapshot of the universe taken by > my brain. The brain simulates a virtual world based on information from > the real world. We don't really experience the real world, we just > experience this simulated world. Observer moments for observers should > refer to the physical states of the virtual world they live in. Since > different observers live in different universes which have different > laws of physics, these physical states (= qualia) cannot be compared to > each other. How do you know they live in different universes? The great agreement among observers is what leads us to believe in an objective world. It appears that it is more economical (both ontologically and algorithmically) to explain the agreement by supposing there is an objective world as described by physics. In which case the observer moments are derivative from the objective world - that's what makes it a more efficient hypothesis. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: how to define ASSA (was: The ASSA leads to a unique utilitarism)
1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of "next". However, I don't understand the "shared by everyone" part. Different persons are different programs who cannot exactly represent the "observer moment" of me. As I see it, an observer moment is a snapshot of the universe taken by my brain. The brain simulates a virtual world based on information from the real world. We don't really experience the real world, we just experience this simulated world. Observer moments for observers should refer to the physical states of the virtual world they live in. Since different observers live in different universes which have different laws of physics, these physical states (= qualia) cannot be compared to each other. We can only talk about an absolute measure for programs (simulated by other programs or not)... Citeren Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Russell Standish wrote: >> This is actually the SSSA, as originally defined by Bostrom. The ASSA >> is the SSSA applied to "next observer moments". > > I guess there is a bit of confusing on these terms. I did some searching in > the mailing list archives to find out how they were originally defined. > First of all SSSA was clearly coined by Hal Finney, not Bostrom. Here's Hal > Finney on May 18, 1999: > >> Perhaps we need to distinguish a "Strong Self-Sampling Assumption", >> which is like the SSA but instead of discussing "observers", it refers to >> "observer-instants". > > Followed by Bruno Marchal's reply defining RSSA/ASSA: > >> >Perhaps we need to distinguish a "Strong Self-Sampling Assumption", >> >which is like the SSA but instead of discussing "observers", it refers to >> >"observer-instants". >> >> Useful distinction, indeed. >> >> Nevertheless I do think we should also distinguish between >> a relative strong SSA and a absolute strong SSA. >> The idea is that we can only quantify the first-person >> indeterminism on the set of consistent observer-instants >> extensions. I mean : consistent with the observers memory of its own >> (first person) past. > > Actually now I'm not sure what Bruno really meant. I had assumed that ASSA > was the same thing as SSSA, only with the clarification that it's not > relative. But if Bruno had really meant to define ASSA as "SSSA applied to > the next observer moment" then I have been using the term "ASSA" > incorrectly. > > So to sum up, there are two possible meanings for ASSA currently. Does > anyone else have an opinion on the matter? Here are the competing > definitions: > > 1. You should reason as if your current observer-moment was randomly > selected from a distribution that is shared by everyone and independent of > your current observations (hence "absolute"). > > 2. You should expect your next observer-moment to be randomly selected from > a distribution that is shared by everyone and independent of your current > observations. > > > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
