> 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 

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 

Reply via email to