I recently read this post from a couple years back, and I do not understand the point being made at all.
Isn’t this, along with so many other problems, a candidate for our sometime friend the anthropic principle? That is: only in a conscious configuration field which has memories of perceptions of an orderly universe is the dust theory controversial or doubted? In the vastly more numerous conscious configuration fields with memories of perceptions of a chaotic and disorderly universe lacking a rational way to support the observer the dust theory could be accepted a priori or at least be a favored theory.
Man, like, anthropics is hard. Sometimes, when trying to propose an anthropic argument, you end up conditioning on something that is basically what you’re trying to elicit a probability of, and things get weird.
If it makes you feel better, I have a head for this stuff and I strongly suspect that what he said is complete bunk. But I’m waiting for confirmation before I make that judgment.
I recently read this post from a couple years back, and I do not understand the point being made at all.
Seriously, what?
Man, like, anthropics is hard. Sometimes, when trying to propose an anthropic argument, you end up conditioning on something that is basically what you’re trying to elicit a probability of, and things get weird.
If it makes you feel better, I have a head for this stuff and I strongly suspect that what he said is complete bunk. But I’m waiting for confirmation before I make that judgment.