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. Example: 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. Regards, Günther -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
