Re: Doomsday Argument (was: a baysian solution)

From: Nick Bostrom <>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 22:13:36 +0000

Wei Dai <> writes:
> But the problem is deeper than that. The premise of the argument was not
> that one's name should be considered a random sample from the set of all
> possible names, but that the total knowledge a person has about the
> universe can be summed up as "The real universe contains a person with
> mind state M" where M is his current mind state. If this leads to absurd
> conclusions, what is the alternative?

It doesn't lead to absurd conclusions if he reagards M as a
random sample from all *actual* mind state (instances). It's only if
he erroneously think of it as a random sample from all possible mind
states that he gets the consesequence that there are more mind states
than he previously thought.

Nick Bostrom
Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method
London School of Economics
Received on Mon Apr 27 1998 - 14:26:05 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST