On 18/11/2007, Gene Ledbetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> In another thread Rolf mentioned a variant of the Doomsday Argument where
> the universe is infinite:
> << ...This variant DA asks, "if there's currently a Galactic Empire 10000
> Hubble Volumes away with an immensely large number of people, why wasn't I
> born there instead of here?" >>
> The implication of the question seems to be that the questioner (Q) could
> have been born in either of the two populations at random, and, assuming the
> number of people in the Galactic Empire is sufficiently immense, the
> probability that he could have been born on Earth is close to nil.
> But Q could not have been born in either of the two populations; he could
> only have been born on Earth, and his failure to realize this suggests that
> he has ignored his own material and biological nature.
> Q is a material object and a living organism. He is composed of atoms from
> Earth's interior that could in no way be part of a remote Galactic Empire.
> Q's birth occurred because humans reproduce sexually, and his birth occurred
> on Earth because his parents lived on Earth. Q could not have been born in
> the Galactic Empire because he could not have been born anywhere but on
> Earth.

How is this different to arguing that a person who wins the lottery
should not ask how come something so improbable has happened to him
since he could only be asking the question if he had been a winner?

Stathis Papaioannou

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