In a message dated 01/18/2000 1:09:02 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 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
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, equ
In a message dated 01/17/2000 4:58:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[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,
Hal and Marchal:
I guess the fundamental reason why I insist that the world is quantized is
because of the equivalence I make between
1) the universe of thoughts,
2) The universe of Turing simulation and
3) the physical universe.
In my opinion, this equivalence originates from the "rational
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: \/
> In my opinion, the RSSA is the conditional probability of you observing
> something happening given that you are alive to observe it. Thus is it a
> first person probability measure.
In that case, if by "is" you mean "gives results equal to", it
would
5 matches
Mail list logo
