Rolf Nelson wrote: > 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)?
My current position is, forget the "odds". Let's say there is no odds, likelihood, probability, degrees of confidence, what have you, that I live in (2) but not (1) or (3). Instead, I'll consider myself as living in all of (1), (2), and (3), and whenever I make any decisions, I will consider the consequences of my choices on all of these universes. But the end result is that I'll still act *as if* I only live in (2) because I simply do not care very much about the consequences of my actions in (1) and (3). I don't care about (1) and (3) because those universes are too arbitrary or random, and I can defend that by pointing to their high algorithmic complexities. So this example does not seem to support the notion that the "Measure Problem" needs to be solved. > 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? If I kept winning the lottery every day, I would have the following thoughts: There are two types of universe where I've won the lottery every day, those where there's a reason I've won (e.g., it's rigged to always let one person win) and those where there's no reason (i.e. I won them fair and square). I am living in universes of both types, but I care much more about those of the first type because they have lower algorithmic complexities. Therefore I should act as if I'm living in the first type of universe and try to find out what the reason is that I've won. But what if I've won the lottery only once? I'd still be tempted to ask "why did I win instead of someone else?" But the above rationale for searching for an answer doesn't work, because there is no simpler universe where a reason for my winning exists. The "Measure Problem" seems more like this situation. In both cases, there is no apparent rationale for asking "why", but we are tempted (or even compelled) to do so nevertheless. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
