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
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
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
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