If you're interested in videos about big numbers like Tree 3, I would recommend https://youtu.be/kmAc1nDizu0. It's about the Busy Beaver function, which grows faster than any other function that can be defined in a finite number of steps.
From Olum's abstract it seems that he is just appealing to the doomsday argument. Well, yes, SSA is stupid in this case and SIA just so happens to produce a correct answer. This, however, is not a sufficient argument in favor of SIA in general.
The actual common sense solution to domsday argument is that you are not randomly sampled among all people that have ever existed, nor all the possible people. Your existence is the result of specific causal process: your parents having sex, about nine months of pregnancy and then your mother giving birth. This process couldn't have created any other person but you or, arguably, your twin.
> as does Carlsmith.
This I've read in full several years ago and since that I can't stop wondering how any person can treat either SIA or SSA as candidates for being true. It probably was the greatest inspiration for the anthropic sequence that I'm working on now.
Carlsmith explains in details how both SSA and SIA lead to obviously stupid conclusions, implying that people have psychic powers to blackmail reality, and then sides with SIA anyway. And the core reason why he is ready to bite all the SIA's bullets is that they are inevitable conclusion of thirdism in Sleeping Beauty. He mentions this point several times but apparently doesn't understand that it's a reason to re-investigate his commitment to thirdism.
> A quick route from mathematics to metaphysical necessity
Ha. I see some people are still trying to apply the sleight of hand from Critique of Pure Reason. I'll let the readers find the exact fallacy themselves and simply present a general proof:
Either Alexander Pruss's line of reasoning is logically coherent or it's not. Let's assume that it is. Then it's a logical proof that Peano Axioms are consistent. But then, according to Godel, Peono Axioms are not consistent - thus a contradiction. Q. E. D. This line of reasoning is logically incoherent.
If you're interested in videos about big numbers like Tree 3, I would recommend https://youtu.be/kmAc1nDizu0. It's about the Busy Beaver function, which grows faster than any other function that can be defined in a finite number of steps.
Hinduism link is to your response to Neil, not Amos's article
> Olum has a good piece arguing for SIA
From Olum's abstract it seems that he is just appealing to the doomsday argument. Well, yes, SSA is stupid in this case and SIA just so happens to produce a correct answer. This, however, is not a sufficient argument in favor of SIA in general.
The actual common sense solution to domsday argument is that you are not randomly sampled among all people that have ever existed, nor all the possible people. Your existence is the result of specific causal process: your parents having sex, about nine months of pregnancy and then your mother giving birth. This process couldn't have created any other person but you or, arguably, your twin.
> as does Carlsmith.
This I've read in full several years ago and since that I can't stop wondering how any person can treat either SIA or SSA as candidates for being true. It probably was the greatest inspiration for the anthropic sequence that I'm working on now.
Carlsmith explains in details how both SSA and SIA lead to obviously stupid conclusions, implying that people have psychic powers to blackmail reality, and then sides with SIA anyway. And the core reason why he is ready to bite all the SIA's bullets is that they are inevitable conclusion of thirdism in Sleeping Beauty. He mentions this point several times but apparently doesn't understand that it's a reason to re-investigate his commitment to thirdism.
> Adam Elga is right about sleeping beauty
No he is not. https://benthams.substack.com/p/elga-proved-13/comment/51980818?utm_source=activity_item
> A quick route from mathematics to metaphysical necessity
Ha. I see some people are still trying to apply the sleight of hand from Critique of Pure Reason. I'll let the readers find the exact fallacy themselves and simply present a general proof:
Either Alexander Pruss's line of reasoning is logically coherent or it's not. Let's assume that it is. Then it's a logical proof that Peano Axioms are consistent. But then, according to Godel, Peono Axioms are not consistent - thus a contradiction. Q. E. D. This line of reasoning is logically incoherent.