Günther Greindl wrote:
> 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?
That's a good argument assuming some laws of physics. But as I understood it,
the "measure problem" was to explain the law-like evolution of the universe as
a opposed to a chaotic/random/white-rabbit universe. Is it your interpretation
that, among all possible worlds, somebody has to live in law-like ones; so it
might as well be us?
> 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.
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