On 11 November 2013 18:18, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  On 11/10/2013 5:59 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 11 November 2013 13:53, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>  On 11/10/2013 3:54 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>  Sure, but the thing is that *you have to*, and asking such question at
>> that stage is very likely... you can't be 10⁵ years old before having been
>> 1 year old... it's simply nonsense.
>>  So you're falling back on the all-purpose 'everything' answer; whatever
>> you observe is one of everything and that why everything is consistent with
>> it - like why I'm not a Chinaman?
>>  There isn't any falling back here that I can see. It seems quite
> reasonable to say you have to pass through your birthdays in ascending
> order. I can't see why that is problematic / contraversial?
> Sure, but if I live infinitely long I will have almost all my experiences
> older than 75.  So when I note that I'm not that old and that seems
> improbable, it's not an answer to say, "Well, less than 75 is an age you
> must be sometime."  Jason at least had an answer, although I don't think
> his answer leads to immortality either.

I didn't say "75 is an age you must be sometime" - I said "75 is an age you
must be before you can be 76". You can only reach age N by traversing all
lower ages first. You can't use a self-sampling argument to show that you
shouldn't be your current age if you *have* to pass through that age before
you can experience any greater ages.

This is an answer.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to