On 18/11/2007, Gene Ledbetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In another thread Rolf mentioned a variant of the Doomsday Argument where > the universe is infinite: > > << ...This variant DA asks, "if there's currently a Galactic Empire 10000 > Hubble Volumes away with an immensely large number of people, why wasn't I > born there instead of here?" >> > > The implication of the question seems to be that the questioner (Q) could > have been born in either of the two populations at random, and, assuming the > number of people in the Galactic Empire is sufficiently immense, the > probability that he could have been born on Earth is close to nil. > > But Q could not have been born in either of the two populations; he could > only have been born on Earth, and his failure to realize this suggests that > he has ignored his own material and biological nature. > > Q is a material object and a living organism. He is composed of atoms from > Earth's interior that could in no way be part of a remote Galactic Empire. > Q's birth occurred because humans reproduce sexually, and his birth occurred > on Earth because his parents lived on Earth. Q could not have been born in > the Galactic Empire because he could not have been born anywhere but on > Earth.
How is this different to arguing that a person who wins the lottery should not ask how come something so improbable has happened to him since he could only be asking the question if he had been a winner? -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
