I’m in favor of the complexity location hypothesis.
A hypothesis needs to describe the universe, and point you out within it, and it uses occam’s razor for both.
This means you should assign a high probability to finding yourself in a special position, ie one easy to describe.
If the hypothesis are 1 red shirt, or 1 red and 3^^3 blue shirts. Then observing a red shirt is modest evidence towards the former position. And if you find yourself in the latter world, your probability of being the red shirt is determined by the length of “your the red shirt”, not by the number of blue shirts. (Although if there weren’t many blue shirts, “your on the left” or “you have the biggest feet” might also locate you, giving higher total probability.)
I think both are wrong.
I’m in favor of the complexity location hypothesis.
A hypothesis needs to describe the universe, and point you out within it, and it uses occam’s razor for both.
This means you should assign a high probability to finding yourself in a special position, ie one easy to describe.
If the hypothesis are 1 red shirt, or 1 red and 3^^3 blue shirts. Then observing a red shirt is modest evidence towards the former position. And if you find yourself in the latter world, your probability of being the red shirt is determined by the length of “your the red shirt”, not by the number of blue shirts. (Although if there weren’t many blue shirts, “your on the left” or “you have the biggest feet” might also locate you, giving higher total probability.)