This seems like an argument about what reference class is appropriate to use for anthropic reasoning?
I am very confused about anthropics in general, but I’m not sure this even affects the argument. We know that our box is labeled “Earth”, but we still don’t know if it’s an early-filter box, a middle-filter box, or a late-filter box. And since we know that almost all boxes are late-filter boxes...
When using SIA (which is actually an abbreviation of SSA+SIA), there are no reference classes. SIA favors hypotheses in proportion to how many copies of your subjective experiences they contain. Shulman and Bostrom explain why on p. 9 of this paper, in the paragraph beginning with “In the SSA+SIA combination”.
We know the filter on Earth (if any) can’t be early or middle because we’re here, though we don’t know what the filter looks like on planets in general. If the filter is late, there are many more boxes at our general stage. But SIA doesn’t care how many are at our general stage; it only cares how many are indistinguishable from us (including having the label “Earth” on the box). So no update.
We know the filter on Earth can’t be early or middle because we’re here, though we don’t know what the filter looks like in general.
I’m confused by this sentence. It sounds like it contains the update you’re arguing against. Are you presenting this as part of your own argument, or part of the argument you’re opposing? Because if we don’t have an early or middle filter, that leaves us with a late filter, and thus impending doomsday.
Sorry, that sentence was confusing. :/ It wasn’t really meant to say anything at all. The “filter” that we’re focusing on is a statistical property of planets in general, and it’s this property of planets in general that we’re trying to evaluate. What happened on Earth has no bearing on that question.
That sentence was also confusing because it made it sound like a filter would happen on Earth, which is not necessarily the case. I edited to say “We know the filter on Earth (if any)”, adding the “if any” part.
This seems like an argument about what reference class is appropriate to use for anthropic reasoning?
I am very confused about anthropics in general, but I’m not sure this even affects the argument. We know that our box is labeled “Earth”, but we still don’t know if it’s an early-filter box, a middle-filter box, or a late-filter box. And since we know that almost all boxes are late-filter boxes...
Thanks, Wes_W. :)
When using SIA (which is actually an abbreviation of SSA+SIA), there are no reference classes. SIA favors hypotheses in proportion to how many copies of your subjective experiences they contain. Shulman and Bostrom explain why on p. 9 of this paper, in the paragraph beginning with “In the SSA+SIA combination”.
We know the filter on Earth (if any) can’t be early or middle because we’re here, though we don’t know what the filter looks like on planets in general. If the filter is late, there are many more boxes at our general stage. But SIA doesn’t care how many are at our general stage; it only cares how many are indistinguishable from us (including having the label “Earth” on the box). So no update.
I’m confused by this sentence. It sounds like it contains the update you’re arguing against. Are you presenting this as part of your own argument, or part of the argument you’re opposing? Because if we don’t have an early or middle filter, that leaves us with a late filter, and thus impending doomsday.
Sorry, that sentence was confusing. :/ It wasn’t really meant to say anything at all. The “filter” that we’re focusing on is a statistical property of planets in general, and it’s this property of planets in general that we’re trying to evaluate. What happened on Earth has no bearing on that question.
That sentence was also confusing because it made it sound like a filter would happen on Earth, which is not necessarily the case. I edited to say “We know the filter on Earth (if any)”, adding the “if any” part.