# Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

```Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
> On 3/16/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>     Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>      >     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 [in] 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?
>
>
> There are factors creating a local measure, even if the Plenitude is
> infinite and measureless. Although the chance that you will be you is
> zero or almost zero if you consider the Plenitude as God's big lucky
> dip, you have to be someone given that we are talking about observers,
> and once you are that fantastically improbable person, ```
```
In other words, "That's just the way it is.", which comports with my complaint
that such theories are empty.

Brent Meeker

>it becomes a
> certainty that you will remain him for as long as there are future
> versions of him extant anywhere at all. Thus, the first person
> perspective, necessarily from within the plenitude, makes a global
> impossibility a local certainty.
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
>
>
> >

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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