Eliezer, I used “=>” (intending logical implication), not “>=”.
Zis would seems to explains it.
(I use → to indicate logical implication and ⇒ to indicate a step in a proof, or otherwise implication outside the formal system—I do understand this to be conventional.)
I would suggest you read my post above on this second page, and see if that changes your mind.
Not particularly. I use 4 but with P(W|S) = P(W) which renders it valid. (We’re not talking about two side-by-side universes, but about prior probabilities on physical law plus a presumption of survival.)
Also, in a previous post in this thread I argued that one should be surprised by externally improbable survival, at least in the sense that it should make one increase the probability assigned to alternative explanations of the world that do not make survival so unlikely.
This could only reflect uncertainty that anthropic reasoning was valid. If you were certain anthropic reasoning were valid (I’m sure not!) then you would make no such update. In practice, after surviving a few hundred rounds of quantum suicide, would further survivals really seem to call for alternative explanations?
Zis would seems to explains it.
(I use → to indicate logical implication and ⇒ to indicate a step in a proof, or otherwise implication outside the formal system—I do understand this to be conventional.)
Not particularly. I use 4 but with P(W|S) = P(W) which renders it valid. (We’re not talking about two side-by-side universes, but about prior probabilities on physical law plus a presumption of survival.)
This could only reflect uncertainty that anthropic reasoning was valid. If you were certain anthropic reasoning were valid (I’m sure not!) then you would make no such update. In practice, after surviving a few hundred rounds of quantum suicide, would further survivals really seem to call for alternative explanations?