Ok, it looks like I start to understand your point of view.
Imagine that there is a Devil, which could manipulate the “measure” of any observer (e.g. by secretly creating a number of observer’s copies or adding more juice into observer’s existence, the method doesn’t matter here.) Neither observer, nor objective God’s eye can’t distinguish any difference.This will screw any attempts of Sleeping beauty to calculate probabilities, as there is no mapping between objective and subjective probabilities. Surely, SB assumes that there is no devil or it could be predicted as some form of bias, but how can she be sure?
Returning to what I said in the comment above, surely I meant that there are several instances of SB, like one more on Wednesday and only one on Wed can’t think about anthropics, so the choice from several similar copies remains, but it should be limited to copies who actually thinking about anthropic. As someone said in comment about this idea: “Now you updating of the fact that you are updating!” Exactly this.
My view (at least before devil idea) is that we can solve most paradoxes about anthropics or at least replace them with uncertainties about our own believes. E..g in form of claims that “there is 50 per cent chance that Doomsday argument is true”.
We also could test experimentally if anthropic reasoning works by looking at smaller examples from our own life. Like situations similar to the claim: “Cars in the next lane really do go faster” or that my birthday looks like to be a randomly chosen from the whole year duration.
In my opinion, “the next lane goes faster” is not really an anthropic problem. If we treat lane choosing as the experiment, there could be other factors affecting one’s decision other than speed. So one lane could seem more preferable, making it busier thus slower. Or at the very least, as suggested above, joining a lane make it slower.
Nick Bostrom giving an anthropic explanation is not a surprise either. By treating anthropic as Observation Selection Effect, anthropics appear everywhere. Even for a simple toss of a fair coin, we could think how this particular toss is selected from all the tosses performed by me in my lifetime, or even from all the tosses performed by all observers in this universe.
Observation Selection Effect is fixated on reasoning about two things: 1. The fact that I exist (now). 2. The fact that I am this particular physical observer (experiencing the current moment). SSA and SIA try to provide ways to understand them and draw information from them. In my opinion, those things have no explanation. They can only be accepted as primitively given, a reasoning starting point.
Interestingly, if I think about a random coin presented to me, I think about the chances that it is biased coin, and dismiss them as most coins in the universe are not biased and most of observations of coins are observations of unbiased coins. So I use something like selection of my observation from all observations in the universe to get a prior about if the coin is biased. And I do it almost unconsciously, it is built-in calculation of what is normal.
Ok, it looks like I start to understand your point of view.
Imagine that there is a Devil, which could manipulate the “measure” of any observer (e.g. by secretly creating a number of observer’s copies or adding more juice into observer’s existence, the method doesn’t matter here.) Neither observer, nor objective God’s eye can’t distinguish any difference.This will screw any attempts of Sleeping beauty to calculate probabilities, as there is no mapping between objective and subjective probabilities. Surely, SB assumes that there is no devil or it could be predicted as some form of bias, but how can she be sure?
Returning to what I said in the comment above, surely I meant that there are several instances of SB, like one more on Wednesday and only one on Wed can’t think about anthropics, so the choice from several similar copies remains, but it should be limited to copies who actually thinking about anthropic. As someone said in comment about this idea: “Now you updating of the fact that you are updating!” Exactly this.
My view (at least before devil idea) is that we can solve most paradoxes about anthropics or at least replace them with uncertainties about our own believes. E..g in form of claims that “there is 50 per cent chance that Doomsday argument is true”.
We also could test experimentally if anthropic reasoning works by looking at smaller examples from our own life. Like situations similar to the claim: “Cars in the next lane really do go faster” or that my birthday looks like to be a randomly chosen from the whole year duration.
[edited]
It could be, but Bostrom suggested stronger explanation: you spent more time in slower lanes.
In my opinion, “the next lane goes faster” is not really an anthropic problem. If we treat lane choosing as the experiment, there could be other factors affecting one’s decision other than speed. So one lane could seem more preferable, making it busier thus slower. Or at the very least, as suggested above, joining a lane make it slower.
Nick Bostrom giving an anthropic explanation is not a surprise either. By treating anthropic as Observation Selection Effect, anthropics appear everywhere. Even for a simple toss of a fair coin, we could think how this particular toss is selected from all the tosses performed by me in my lifetime, or even from all the tosses performed by all observers in this universe.
Observation Selection Effect is fixated on reasoning about two things: 1. The fact that I exist (now). 2. The fact that I am this particular physical observer (experiencing the current moment). SSA and SIA try to provide ways to understand them and draw information from them. In my opinion, those things have no explanation. They can only be accepted as primitively given, a reasoning starting point.
Interestingly, if I think about a random coin presented to me, I think about the chances that it is biased coin, and dismiss them as most coins in the universe are not biased and most of observations of coins are observations of unbiased coins. So I use something like selection of my observation from all observations in the universe to get a prior about if the coin is biased. And I do it almost unconsciously, it is built-in calculation of what is normal.