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 

Reply via email to