steven comments on How Many LHC Failures Is Too Many? - Less Wrong

16 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 September 2008 09:38PM

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

Comments (130)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: steven 21 September 2008 01:41:28AM 0 points [-]

This remark may be somewhat premature, since I don't think we're yet at the point in time when the LHC would have started producing collisions if not for this malfunction. However, a few weeks(?) from now, the "Anthropic!" hypothesis will start to make sense, assuming it can make sense at all. (Does this mean we can foresee executing a future probability update, but can't go ahead and update now?)

I can only see this statement making any sense if you think we should behave as if nature first randomly picked a value of a global cross-world time parameter, then randomly picked an observer (in any world) alive at that time, and that observer is you. (Actually I can't see it making any sense even then.) But that's not thinking 4D! Choosing a random observer in all of spacetime makes much more sense.