Re: Doomsday-like argument in cosmology

2002-08-15 Thread Wei Dai
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 12:26:10AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote: > I haven't read the paper in detail, so I could be wrong. Consider the two > alternatives: > > 1) true cosmological constant > > 2) no true cosmological constant > > We also assume SIA. Is it the case that there are much fewer obser

Re: Doomsday-like argument in cosmology

2002-08-15 Thread Saibal Mitra
I haven't read the paper in detail, so I could be wrong. Consider the two alternatives: 1) true cosmological constant 2) no true cosmological constant We also assume SIA. Is it the case that there are much fewer observers in case of 2) than in case of 1) ? I haven't seen such a statement in the

Re: Doomsday-like argument in cosmology

2002-08-15 Thread Wei Dai
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:28:28PM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote: > I think that the difference is that invoking the SIA does not affect the > conclusion of the paper. Why do you say that? I think SIA affects the conclusion of the paper the same way it affects the Doomsday argument. It's kind of f

Re: Doomsday-like argument in cosmology

2002-08-15 Thread Saibal Mitra
I think that the difference is that invoking the SIA does not affect the conclusion of the paper. Saibal Wei Dai wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 12:45:17AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Dyson, L., Kleban, M. & Susskind, L. Disturbing implications of a > > cosmological constant. Preprint

Doomsday-like argument in cosmology

2002-08-15 Thread Wei Dai
- Forwarded message from Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:28:43 -0700 From: Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Nature Article On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 12:45:17AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Dyson, L., Kleban, M. & Susskind, L. Distu