In multiverses or many worlds, SSA and (new) SIA are the same thing.
SIA used to be: “universes with more observers are more likely”. This has no intuitive reason to be true, and seems gratuitous. The new SIA is the old SIA plus SSA, which is “reason as if you were drawn at random from the space of all possible observers”. This has a lot more intuitive appeal, and implies the old SIA.
Given the fact that you exist, you should (other things equal) favor hypotheses according to which many observers exist over hypotheses on which few observers exist.
That’s similar to claiming that the majority of observers exist in observer-rich worlds—which seems fairly plausible.
In multiverses or many worlds, SSA and (new) SIA are the same thing.
It turns it into a non-issue for me. Maybe the focus of attention should switch to obersvers vs observer moments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Indication_Assumption says there are now two different versions of the SIA :-(
The definitions given on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Indication_Assumption and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Sampling_Assumption seem as though they refer to the same thing—under many “multiverse” cosmologies. IIRC, these two terms once referred to two different ideas.
In multiverses or many worlds, SSA and (new) SIA are the same thing.
SIA used to be: “universes with more observers are more likely”. This has no intuitive reason to be true, and seems gratuitous. The new SIA is the old SIA plus SSA, which is “reason as if you were drawn at random from the space of all possible observers”. This has a lot more intuitive appeal, and implies the old SIA.
Here’s how Bostrom put the old SIA:
That’s similar to claiming that the majority of observers exist in observer-rich worlds—which seems fairly plausible.
It turns it into a non-issue for me. Maybe the focus of attention should switch to obersvers vs observer moments.