I also thought that we may be in in the lowest level of infinitely complex multilevel simulation (and of any possible simulation in math world).
But it still don’t help with measure problem, because many similar things in math world is just one thing. So if our world is simulated many times it doesn’t change its measure. Like no matter how many times we wrote 25 it will not change distribution of prime numbers in the set of natural numbers.
But also random choosing doesn’t work with infinite sets. We can’t choose random prime number, or it will be infinitely long. I think we could dig in this way.
A. One possible counterargument here is following. Imagine that any being has rank X, proportional to its complexity (or year of birth). But there will be infinitely many beings which are 10X complex, 100X complex and so on. So any being with finite complexity is in the beginning of the complexity ladder. So any may be surprised if it is very early. So there is no surprise to be surprised.
But we are still should be in the middle of infinity, but our situation is not so—it looks like we have just enough complexity to start to understand the problem, which is still surprising.
B. Another similar rebuttal: imagine all being which are surprised by their position. The fact that we are in this set is resulted only from definition of the set, but not from any properties of the whole Universe. Example: All people who was born 1 January may be surpised that their birthday coincide with New Year, but it doesn’t provide them any information about length of the year.
But my birthday is randomly position inside the years (September) and in most testable cases mediocracy logic works as predicted.
I also thought that we may be in in the lowest level of infinitely complex multilevel simulation (and of any possible simulation in math world).
But it still don’t help with measure problem, because many similar things in math world is just one thing. So if our world is simulated many times it doesn’t change its measure. Like no matter how many times we wrote 25 it will not change distribution of prime numbers in the set of natural numbers.
But also random choosing doesn’t work with infinite sets. We can’t choose random prime number, or it will be infinitely long. I think we could dig in this way.
A. One possible counterargument here is following. Imagine that any being has rank X, proportional to its complexity (or year of birth). But there will be infinitely many beings which are 10X complex, 100X complex and so on. So any being with finite complexity is in the beginning of the complexity ladder. So any may be surprised if it is very early. So there is no surprise to be surprised.
But we are still should be in the middle of infinity, but our situation is not so—it looks like we have just enough complexity to start to understand the problem, which is still surprising.
B. Another similar rebuttal: imagine all being which are surprised by their position. The fact that we are in this set is resulted only from definition of the set, but not from any properties of the whole Universe. Example: All people who was born 1 January may be surpised that their birthday coincide with New Year, but it doesn’t provide them any information about length of the year.
But my birthday is randomly position inside the years (September) and in most testable cases mediocracy logic works as predicted.