tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post3170480706686243110..comments2024-01-03T15:34:49.620+00:00Comments on Ian Wardell: Philosophical Thoughts: What were the chances of me being born?Ian Wardellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-76148457868359742222014-10-02T15:58:20.385+01:002014-10-02T15:58:20.385+01:00I understand your issue because I made similar con...I understand your issue because I made similar considerations for my own. At first, I realized that a Multiverse like the one that Max Tegmark proposes may allow all the possible conditions have their chance to happen, but still this let me unsatiflied. Then I realize that the real problem is not to find ourselves as winners in this game, but the more basic fact of finding ourselves as players in the life-game. I called it the "individual existential problem". I am trying to formalize the idea, and I would like to hear your opinion.Iacopo Vettorihttp://www.iacopovettori.itnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-56718994744050529142014-09-03T21:46:56.332+01:002014-09-03T21:46:56.332+01:00if inflation is true (and thats almost true), spac...if inflation is true (and thats almost true), space is infinite, probability of you is 1. Read Max Tegmark's Our mathematical UniverseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-17104284404437892532014-08-25T18:43:31.398+01:002014-08-25T18:43:31.398+01:00Not sure what the purpose of your last reply was. ...Not sure what the purpose of your last reply was. Doesn't matter if each intended victim is aware of all other victims, if he is the one that survives then he will be amazed and justifiably conclude that not all is as it seems. And a bystander will not be at all amazed unless the victim is special compared to all possible others.<br /><br />I can't discern any disagreement with my original blog entry in your latest reply, so I'll just leave it at that.Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-28703454363034136352014-08-21T17:07:40.568+01:002014-08-21T17:07:40.568+01:00The Kidnapper
Your extended kidnapping analogy do...<b>The Kidnapper</b><br /><br />Your extended kidnapping analogy doesn't change how amazed someone should be, surely? If there were a quadrillion cases taking place, <i>but each case was unaware of the other cases</i> - i.e. for them, equivalent to only one case taking place: theirs - would that change the amazement levels expected for the case where the victim survived? No, surely?<br /><br />It really does get back to meaningfulness. Meaningfulness doesn't make anything more or less likely - of course! For the hands of card, <i>all hands of cards are equally probable or improbable</i>. Just because some hands are more desirable, or some hands correspond to a pattern held special by the players (because they correspond to a sequence they recognise, or colours they recognise) doesn't make them more special or unusual from a <i>likelihood</i> point of view.<br /><br /><b>The GPS Analogy</b><br /><br />The GPS example is an example of saying that a particular state is unlikely just because there are other possibilities, when in fact you would be able to say the same thing no matter which of the states you were in. Fair enough, of course.<br /><br />But if we add into the mix that one of the co-ordinates is <i>your house</i> and you find yourself there, we can extend the metaphor. Either:<br /><br />* If you are amazed to find that, in daily life, your GPS co-ordinates correspond to those of your house a lot of the time, then that is like the anthropic principle (it is no surprise, it is obviously going to be the case: you are home). <br /><br />* If what has happened is you've been transported using a "random co-ordinate teleported machine" and you end up in your house, it's like the kidnapper story (you are only in a position to be amazed because you are at that location).<br /><br />[By "all possible planets" I didn't mean that we could be born on Mars or something, I meant "Planet Earth as it is". I wasn't very clear on that! I just meant that the universe was ordered such that we were on a breathable planet in this location, that sort of thing.]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-40833956845285198212014-08-21T15:46:16.413+01:002014-08-21T15:46:16.413+01:00The point about the GPS co-ordinates is the whole ...The point about the GPS co-ordinates is the whole reason why I wrote this blog entry in the first place -- it was an attempt to show that such reasoning is transparently flawed. You're just saying the same type of things other people say and which I hoped I'd addressed. <br /><br />In the kidnapping case a bystander ought to be just as amazed as the intended victim. However if there are, say a quadrillion permutations, and a quadrillion people were kidnapped by a quadrillion kidnappers who carried out this procedure, then on average 999,999,999,999,999 victims would die. The 1 person who survived would be amazed, but we ought not to be. <br /><br />But a quadrillion people were not kidnapped, only one was.<br /><br />The point that the probability of an event that has already occurred is 1 is banal in the extreme. That is so almost by definition, unless we could travel back in time! If someone were continually dealt all the spades in each hand when playing bridge, then that person ought to know that he is not just receiving 13 cards randomly. Saying the probability is 1 in that sense after you received 100 such hands in a row is true, but of course is wholly irrelevant.<br /><br />I'm not sure where you're getting possible planets from. Richard Swinburne was talking about the order in the Universe. Ian Wardellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-73708999272597402532014-08-21T14:47:57.427+01:002014-08-21T14:47:57.427+01:00Very interesting. Some thoughts:
Surely the probl...Very interesting. Some thoughts:<br /><br />Surely the problem with all this, is that <i>meaningfulness</i> is separate from <i>likeliness</i>, and this indeed a matter of viewpoint? You touch on this a little.<br /><br />Our victim saved by card-shuffling has had an exceptionally <i>meaningful</i> experience from his perspective, and it is natural to seek an explanation that matches that level of meaning. However, to everyone else the tale requires no further explanation. He was simply very lucky, and the fact he is amazed = the fact that he still exists.<br /><br />Similarly with the lottery numbers. There is nothing special about '1,2,3,4,5,6' except to people familiar with arabic numerals. We are justified in being surprised <i>only</i> because it's a pre-existing pattern in our culture. To anyone else, it requires no special treatment or further explanation.<br /><br />Your existence is meaningful to you - and, hopefully, to a few other people! - but it is only meaningful to you because you do exist. All events <i>which have already occurred</i> have a probability of "1" of <i>having occurred</i>; we cannot wind back to the probability beforehand and be retroactively amazed!<br /><br />However, if we sit here <i>now</i> and work out the probability for a future event based on physical principles of the phenomenon in question, make a prediction, and then it shows up <i>meaningfully</i>, that's different.<br /><br />Which brings up a good side point: It is not at all clear that all possible births, or all possible planets, had equal weighting. When calculating the probabilities of events, readying ourselves to become 'amazed', we would need a clearer model of the processes involved in the chains of events. Otherwise we're doing something akin to saying: "Hey, isn't it amazing that I'm sat at these GPS co-ordinates right now! There are x-million possible co-ordinates! So the probability of this being the case is x-million to one!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com