Re: my objection to the Doomsday argument

From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Fri Apr 25 2003 - 22:02:32 MDT

  • Next message: Michael Wiik: "Re: [WAR]: not about WMD"

    > (gts <gts_2000@yahoo.com>):
    >
    > > Is there a flaw in my reasoning?
    > > mez
    >
    > The problem, theoretically, is that you are not one of those supposed
    > people you mention of the distant past who might have in theory considered
    > the doomsday argument. Instead you are you and you only. You are Ramez Naam
    > of 2003, and no one else. You must, at least according to DA theory, accept
    > that you, Ramez Naam of 2003, are a single random sample taken from the
    > population of all humans ever to live past or present.
    > ...
    > Or so the argument goes.

    This is what I consider the fatal flaw of the idea, and in fact so
    fatal and so obvious that I fail to find the DA even interesting:
    The very words "random sample" are totally meaningless without
    specifying the exact universe from which the samples are taken.
    And if the conclusion one is supposed to reach is the nature of that
    universe, then you obviously can't specify what that universe is in
    the premise to your argument. 

    -- 
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 25 2003 - 22:11:30 MDT