On Oct 24, 9:25 pm, "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rolf Nelson wrote: > > 1. Provides a possible explanation for the "Measure Problem" of why we > > shouldn't be "extremely surprised" to find we live in a lawful > > universe, rather than an extremely chaotic universe, or a homogeneous > > cloud of gas. > > One thing I still don't understand, is in what sense exactly is the "Measure > Problem" a problem? Why isn't it good enough to say that everything exists, > therefore we (i.e. people living in a lawful universe) must exist, and > therefore we shouldn't be surprised that we exist. If the "Measure Problem" > is a problem, then why isn't there also an analogous "Lottery Problem" for > people who have won the lottery?
I don't have anything novel to say on the topic, but maybe if I restate the existing arguments, that'll help you expand on your counter-argument. The "Lottery Problem" would be a problem if I kept winning the lottery every day; I'd think something was fishy, and search for an explanation besides "blind chance", wouldn't you? Let's rank some classes of people, from chaotic (many rules) to lawful (few rules): 1. An infinite number of people live in "an infinite universe that obeys the Standard Model until November 1, 2007, and then adopts completely new laws of physics." If you live here, we predict that strange things will happen on November 1. 2. An infinite number of people live next-door in "an infinite universe that obeys the Standard Model through all of 2007, and maybe beyond." If you live here, expect nothing strange. 3. An infinite number of people live across the street in "a universe that looks like it obeys the Standard Model through November 1, 2007 because we are in the middle of a thermodynamic fluctuation, but the universe itself is extremely lawful, to the point where it's just a homogeneous gas with thermal fluctuations." We predict that strange things will happen on November 1. Your observations to date are consistent with all three models. What are the odds that you live in (2) but not (1) or (3)? Surely the answer is "extremely high", but how do we justify it *mathematically* (and philosophically)? If we can find mathematical solutions to satisfy this "Measure Problem", we can perhaps see what else that mathematical solution predicts, and test its predictions. Your UD+ASSA is the best solution I've seen so far, so I'm surprised there's not more interest in UD+ASSA (or some variant) as a "proto-science". >From the view of a potential scientific theory (rather than a philosophical "formalization of induction"), it's a *good* thing that it predicts "no oracles exist", because that is a falsifiable (though weak) prediction. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---