On 11/18/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?

Should he?

Vladimir Nesov                            mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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