tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13576198.post113222232932297497..comments2023-09-05T05:20:50.393-04:00Comments on second americano: TemporalityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13576198.post-1132280439783276562005-11-17T21:20:00.000-05:002005-11-17T21:20:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Transient Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10313323030838183737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13576198.post-1132280104904309632005-11-17T21:15:00.000-05:002005-11-17T21:15:00.000-05:00Yeah, but it's still a little trickier than that. ...Yeah, but it's still a little trickier than that. Just to clarify something, the argument does not contend that drawing the time = seven marble tells you about the existence of marble time = 11, what it tells you is that if there are two choices, ten time marbles or a hundred time marbles, you are (much) likelier to be in the former case.<BR/><BR/>It seems obvious to you, and me, and the pseudonymous Rt Honorable Bayes, that we are not truly random humans. It seems like you're saying, "hmm...let me pick a person totally at random throughout all of time and space to be the subject of this experiment, I'll flip a coin, roll the d20, consult the I Ching, and...pick...myself." Doesn't seem very random.<BR/><BR/>It's this tricky time thing that seems to be the hang-up. It's the fact that we are, as we'd say in mathematical analysis, "well ordered." This argument pre-supposes a) that you can look at all of time that humans occupy as a "bag," and b) You being Here Now is equivalent to picking a random ball out of that bag. While a) seems at least okay-ish, it immediately seems like b) is not true.<BR/><BR/>Quoting myself here, again: it's 2005 and I'm alive on the earth. What are the odds I'm American? Do the math and you'll come up with an answer that's around 1 in 24, or about a 4% chance. And you're wrong, the Odds Are Oneā¢, I am in fact American. Bayes says I should bet on me being not American, but if I were to do so, I'd lose. Don't get me wrong, I think the Doomsday Argument is totally, utterly invalid, but I don't think it lies in deciding whether you're a random human or not, because it seems very difficult to show that this isn't the case, just as it's difficult to show that it is. I think the answer is really more Platonic than that--you and I can't be defined as random human number 60-billion-and-some-odd, because we cannot be separated from our 20th century-ness, our American-ness, our iPod-having-ness. You could bet on you having many other, much more likely attributes (non-American, born before 1950, not having an iPod), but you'd lose. Not because of the odds, but because You Do Not Exist Apart From Those Things. That is Who You Are.<BR/><BR/>(by the way, no, I still don't have an iPod).Transient Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10313323030838183737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13576198.post-1132244982193041162005-11-17T11:29:00.000-05:002005-11-17T11:29:00.000-05:00Dr. Chambers is clearly right. Let's take the bal...Dr. Chambers is clearly right. Let's take the balls-in-an-urn example. Let's assume that the balls are drawn out sequentially rather than randomly (just as people are born, unless we are coming from Plato's afterlife). Let's assume that Ball No. 7 is drawn. All that tells you is that you are in Time No. 7. It tells you nothing about what will happen at Time No. 11, unless you felt about in the urn when you were drawing and know there are only ten balls.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com