= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobinHanson comments on Real-Life Anthropic Weirdness - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (86)
After a lot of improbable things happen the main thing you have evidence for is that the universe is large enough to have improbable things happen. This could happen in MWI, or it could just happen in an ordinary very large universe. Or it could happen in a simulation that focuses on special events, so if your event is special this is also something that gets more support, relative to a small universe.
But I don't at all see how such events give you evidence about what sort of large universe you live in. And I don't see how winning the lottery is remotely unlikely enough to kick in such considerations.
I don't see how the size of the universe makes any difference - isn't it only the density of weird events that matters?
Unless the hypothesis under consideration is a particularly weird universe, the main way to get more weird events is to get more total events.
But if you get more weird events and more total events, the probability of a given event being weird remains constant.
If it worked the way you said, you could also conclude a large universe based on normal events. This would violate conservation of expected evidence.