On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Isn't there a bit of a problem there? We have these theories about
> how universe[s] come to be. If we encounter critical parameters
> necessary for us to be which are therefore required of this universe
> and those theories do not adequately explain or tend to then either we
> are a very lucky and even more unlikely fling of the dice or we exist
> in a designed universe (sim). The argument and possibility does not
> go way by just using those two words.
We might be a very lucky and unlikely coincidence (observation of the
night sky even with the naked eye will tell you that), but the fact of our
existance is an extremely biased sample of one. The probability of you
observing yourself is unity. In absence of another samples. Hence, the
fact that you're there gives you no other information that you're there.
Which is plenty enough, considering all the other places and spacetimes
where you wouldn't be able to make that observation. (Man, some places
This has nothing to do with whether we live in a simulation, though.
Because we're the measurement device measuring ourselves. A rather
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:24 MDT