KatjaGrace comments on Avoiding doomsday: a "proof" of the self-indication assumption - Less Wrong

18 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 23 September 2009 02:54PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (228)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: SilasBarta 23 September 2009 03:37:13PM *  4 points [-]

I'm relatively green on the Doomsday debate, but:

The non-intuitive form of SIA simply says that universes with many observers are more likely than those with few; the more intuitive formulation is that you should consider yourself as a random observer drawn from the space of possible observers (weighted according to the probability of that observer existing).

Isn't this inserting a hidden assumption about what kind of observers we're talking about? What definition of "observer" do you get to use, and why? In order to "observe", all that's necessary is that you form mutual information with another part of the universe, and conscious entities are a tiny sliver of this set in the observed universe. So the SIA already puts a low probability on the data.

I made a similar point before, but apparenlty there's a flaw in the logic somewhere.

Comment author: KatjaGrace 13 January 2010 06:38:36AM 1 point [-]

SIA does not require a definition of observer. You need only compare the number of experiences exactly like yours (otherwise you can compare those like yours in some aspects, then update on the other info you have, which would get you to the same place).

SSA requires a definition of observers, because it involves asking how many of those are having an experience like yours.