Could you simplify this a bit? Maybe a one-sentence Plain English conclusion?
I followed your links, but I still don’t really understand what you are trying to say. (Yes, I’m pretty new to the site, and yes, I’m working my way through the Sequences, lol)
I asked my caveman friend to translate. He’s a paleoanthropics expert.
Big chunk of space! It has three parts. Is there some guy in each part? Let’s say no. Not unless the part is very lucky!
Now think of many such chunks of space that could have been! Whoa! Sense of wonder! Let’s pick some guy in some chunk. That’ll be us!
First let’s pick some random chunk. Self-Sampling Assumption says we’re a random guy in the chunk! (What if there is no guy in the chunk? Don’t think about it!) Are we alone? Probably yes! Most chunks with a guy don’t have a second guy. Because we said guys are rare! Math!
But now let’s not pick a random chunk. Let’s pick a random guy, in any chunk. Say there’s two guys in a chunk. Then we’ll pick a guy in the chunk twice as often! Self-Indication Assumption! (Maybe they meet and live happily ever after. Just because I’m caveman doesn’t mean I heteronormatize!) Now are we alone? Still probably yes! Most guys are in their own chunk. Yes, if there’s two guys in a chunk it has two chances to be picked. But there’s just so few chunks with two guys. Because we said guys are rare! So this Self-Indication business hardly matters at all! Math!
No real significance so far. But it’s something to keep in mind while working on these problems; it’s somewhat relevant to thinking about the presumptuous philosopher the Anthropic Decision Theory way (making even selfless philosophers tend towards SSA).
Could you simplify this a bit? Maybe a one-sentence Plain English conclusion?
I followed your links, but I still don’t really understand what you are trying to say. (Yes, I’m pretty new to the site, and yes, I’m working my way through the Sequences, lol)
I asked my caveman friend to translate. He’s a paleoanthropics expert.
Now that is the post I should have written :-)
That could have saved me so much time. Thankyou!
I don’t know whether to upvote this for explaining the details or downvote this for a very distracting style.
Upvote.
The “very distracting style” was safely and apologetically contained inside a blockquote.
Could you also add one more line explaining the significance of recognizing that SIA and SSA agree in cases like this?
No real significance so far. But it’s something to keep in mind while working on these problems; it’s somewhat relevant to thinking about the presumptuous philosopher the Anthropic Decision Theory way (making even selfless philosophers tend towards SSA).