LESSWRONG
LW

Fraser
129220
Message
Dialogue
Subscribe

Posts

Sorted by New

Wikitag Contributions

Comments

Sorted by
Newest
No wikitag contributions to display.
You don't actually need a physical multiverse to explain anthropic fine-tuning.
Fraser4mo10

If the observer is distinct from Alice, absolutely. If the observer is Alice, nothing needs explaining in either case.

To put a bit of a crude metaphor on it, if you were to pick a random number uniformly between 0 and 1,000,000, and pre-commit to having a child on iff it's equal to some value X - from the point of view of the child, the probability that the number was equal to X is 100%.

Apologies if there's something more subtle with your answer that I've missed.

Reply
You don't actually need a physical multiverse to explain anthropic fine-tuning.
Fraser4mo10

If the only observable outcome is the one in which we got that extremely lucky, then it doesn't need explaining. You only can observe outcomes compatible with the fact of you making an observation.

Reply
66against that one rationalist mashal about japanese fifth-columnists
7d
6
7You don't actually need a physical multiverse to explain anthropic fine-tuning.
4mo
8
79Introducing AlignmentSearch: An AI Alignment-Informed Conversional Agent
2y
14