[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Sep 27, 2:15 pm, "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Yes. So my point is, even though the subjective probability computed by ASSA >> is intuitively appealing, we end up ignoring it, so why bother? We can >> always make the right choices by thinking directly about measures of >> outcomes and ignoring subjective probabilities. >> >> > > OK, new thought experiement. ;) > > Barring a global disaster which wiped out all of the humanity or its > descendents, there would exist massively more observers in the future > than currently exist. > But you (as an observer) find you born amongst the earliest humans. > Since barring global disaster there will be massively more observers > in the future, why did you find yourself born so early? Surely your > probability of being born in the future (where there are far more > observers) was much much higher than your chances of being born so > early among a far smaller pool of observers? > The conclusion appears to be that there is an overwhelming probability > that we are on the brink of some global disaster which will wipe out > all humanity, since that would explain why we don't find ourselves > among the pool of future observers (because there are none). > Is the conclusion correct? > No, because (under your assumptions) the argument is time-translation invariant.
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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
