Hi all,

> 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?

thank you Wei Dei, I have expressed something similar concerning the 
Doomsday Argument which has the same reasoning flaw.

You can't reason about probabilities "inside" the system and be 
surprised that you are in "location" A or B.


1) If I draw from an urn with 1 Million white balls and 1 black ball, I 
should be pretty surprised if I draw the black one.

2) If I am a black ball in an urn (same distribution as above) and I 
only become conscious if I am drawn and I suddenly "wake up" to find 
myself drawn, I shouldn't be surprised at all - my being drawn was a 
condition for being a perceptive being.

I think a mixing up of these two viewpoints underly much of "measure 
problem", doomsday and other arguments of the same sort.


Günther Greindl
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna

Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/
Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org

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