Yes I perceive nearly infinitely more order than is necessary. But in an infinite configuration space some observers would remember or experience a perception of that. What are the odds its me? Well if I weren’t perceiving that—I wouldn’t even be troubled by this problem! Only entities that remember perceptions of a universe of far greater complexity than needed to support their information state perceive a problem.
Not really. I right now notice far more order than needed. I STILL am noticing that. I do not observe my bookshelf spontaneously turning into a pizza, or, better yet, into just random noise. Not even slowly.
Stuff is WAY more ordered than needed to merely support me existing for several moments or even several hours.
Raw dust hypothesis would SEEM to be refuted with high probability. I admit, anthropics has some stuff that still confuses be, but it sure seems like raw dust is unlikely to be true.
When you say you are still noticing it, what you are saying is that you have a memory of noticing it before, and you perceive it now. Talking to me about experiencing the passage of time amounts to just saying “dust theory is wrong”. I agree with that conclusion, but you haven’t given me any information I don’t already seem to have 33 years worth of.
Yes I perceive nearly infinitely more order than is necessary. But in an infinite configuration space some observers would remember or experience a perception of that. What are the odds its me? Well if I weren’t perceiving that—I wouldn’t even be troubled by this problem! Only entities that remember perceptions of a universe of far greater complexity than needed to support their information state perceive a problem.
Not really. I right now notice far more order than needed. I STILL am noticing that. I do not observe my bookshelf spontaneously turning into a pizza, or, better yet, into just random noise. Not even slowly.
Stuff is WAY more ordered than needed to merely support me existing for several moments or even several hours.
Raw dust hypothesis would SEEM to be refuted with high probability. I admit, anthropics has some stuff that still confuses be, but it sure seems like raw dust is unlikely to be true.
When you say you are still noticing it, what you are saying is that you have a memory of noticing it before, and you perceive it now. Talking to me about experiencing the passage of time amounts to just saying “dust theory is wrong”. I agree with that conclusion, but you haven’t given me any information I don’t already seem to have 33 years worth of.