# Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

```Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
> On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>
>      >     But these ideas illustrate a problem with
>      >     "everything-exists".  Everything conceivable, i.e. not
>      >     self-contradictory is so ill defined it seems impossible to
>     assign
>      >     any measure to it, and without a measure, something to pick
>     out this
>      >     rather than that, the theory is empty.  It just says what is
>      >     possible is possible.  But if there a measure, something
>     picks out
>      >     this rather than that, we can ask why THAT measure?
>      >
>      >
>      > Isn't that like arguing that there can be no number 17 because
>     there is
>      > no way to assign it a measure and it would get lost among all the
>     other
>      > objects in Platonia?
>      >
>      > Stathis Papaioannou
>
>     I think it's more like asking why are we aware of 17 and other small
>     numbers but no integers greater that say 10^10^20 - i.e. almost all
>     of them.  A theory that just says "all integers exist" doesn't help
>     answer that.  But if the integers are something we "make up" (or are
>     hardwired by evolution) then it makes sense that we are only
>     acquainted with small ones.
>
>
> OK, but there are other questions that defy such an explanation. Suppose
> the universe were infinite, as per Tegmark Level 1, and contained an
> infinite number of observers. Wouldn't that make your measure
> effectively zero? And yet here you are.
>
> Stathis Papaioannou```
```
Another observation refuting Tegmark! :-)

Seriously, even in the finite universe we observe my probability is almost
zero.  Almost everything and and everyone is improbable, just like my winning
the lottery when I buy one a million tickets is improbable - but someone has to
win.  So it's a question of relative measure.  Each integer has zero measure in
the set of all integers - yet we are acquainted with some and not others.  So
why is the "acquaintance measure" of small integers so much greater than that
of integers greater than 10^10^20 (i.e. almost all of them).  What picks out
the small integers?

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at