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? Brent Meeker > > > 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 > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
