On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 01:31:16AM +0000, Nick Bostrom wrote:
> Ah, I thought you had some independent paradox in mind. This is just
> a version of our plain old observer self-selection paradox when
> infinities are involved. And I am suspicious of the claim that the
> solution is to declare such universes logically impossible.
> If you knew where you were, maybe you could define the preferred
> position to be the place where you are. But in the case we are
> considering, you don't know where you are, and any choice of a
> preferred point seems equally arbitrary.
I don't understand this. The preferred point is supposed to figure into your a priori distribution for where you are. If you already know for certain where you are, the preferred point is no longer relevant. The preferred point is like a physical constant, it is somewhat arbitrary but like other physical constants it has to be part of a complete theory of an infinite universe.
> > I wasn't being very precise when I said the conventional model has a
> > preferred position which is the Big Bang. What I meant is that the Big
> > Bang is a natural choice for the preferred position. There are many ways
> > to define "near" and thus to pick point number 2. The simplest would be to
> > to pick the point that comes immediately after the Big Bang in the rest
> > frame of the universe.
>
> I think there is an infinity of such points, and because of quantum
> randomness, those points would (with prob 1) house an infinity of
> consciousness-instances.