[ExI] Fermi question, was is a FTL drive a dream . . .

[Eugen Leitl]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 03:56:50AM -0700, Kelly Anderson wrote:

> Probably... but if you grant that such a simulation is possible...
> then it seems far more likely that we are one of the Gazillion

You're not listening. By using the word "likely" you're obviously using
a probabilistic estimate. But you're outside of statistics'
scope of applicability. It works over there. It doesn't work here.

As you're not observing the entire ensemble but just do a self-measurement
the probability of self-detection is unity regardless of whether there
is 10^0, 10^1, 10^12 or 10^30 instances of self-observation. If the outcome 
is always unity regardless of what's in the exponent, what does this say to you?
That the outcome of the measurement is not a function of the number of
observations, as long you can't cross-correlate them (omniscient
observer -- not you). You're perfectly myopic. 
Self-measurements are perfectly biased. They're no good.
You do know that you do exist. Cogito, ergo sum still applies.

You cannot distinguish the individual cases with the information
you have. This applies across space and across time. It applies 
both to probability of sentient life in the universe or how many
people have lived when. No simulation argument for you. Also, no pony.

This isn't hard. Why have people such trouble getting it?

> Trillion simulations that such technology would undoubtedly produce vs
> the ONE and ONLY real ancestors that inspired said simulations... Yes,
> it is a more complex explanation, thus Occam comes into play, but
> statistically, the odds would seem to favor us being in such a
> simulation... So Occam seems to be trumped by probability... maybe.