On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 10:49:27AM +0200, Günther Greindl wrote: > > Hello all, > > I have always found these doomsday arguments rather strange (and the > mathematics, nice as the equations may be, resting on false premises). > > Assuming that OM are distributed unevenly, at the moment you are > _living_ an OM you can make absolutely no conclusion about where in the > distribution you are - it looks somewhat like "after the fact" reasoning > to me. > > But now let us move to Observer Moments (OM): > > You observe: > "I exist here and now. I know nothing about the OM Distribution, I can > only speculate."
In most anthropic arguments, you do know something about the distribution. Otherwise, as you say, you can only speculate. For instance in the original Doomsday argument you know the distribution of birth moments in the past (a relatively slow population increase, followed by a far more rapid increase in the last two centuries), therefore you can infer something about the temporal distribution in the future using the SSA. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
