1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{psfig}
4: \usepackage{latexsym}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6:
7: \topmargin -0.85in
8: \textheight 9.25in
9: \oddsidemargin 0.1in
10: \evensidemargin 0.1in
11: \textwidth 6.3in
12: \tolerance=1600 %allow some tolerance in extending after line.
13: \parskip=6pt
14: \overfullrule=0pt %no dark lines if overfull
15: \setlength{\parindent}{12pt}
16: \setlength{\partopsep}{0pt}
17: \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}
18: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.9}
19: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.1}
20: \setcounter{bottomnumber}{1}
21: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.5}
22:
23: \def\beq{\begin{eqnarray}}
24: \def\eeq{\end{eqnarray}}
25: \def\bqt{\begin{quotation}\vspace{-7pt}\noindent}
26: \def\eqt{\end{quotation}\vspace{-7pt}}
27: \def\Var{\mbox{Var}}
28:
29: \begin{document}
30:
31: \fontsize{11}{14.5pt}\selectfont
32:
33: \begin{center}
34:
35: {\small Technical Report No.\ 0607,
36: Department of Statistics, University of Toronto}
37:
38: \vspace*{0.45in}
39:
40: {\LARGE\bf
41: Puzzles of Anthropic Reasoning Resolved \\[4pt]
42: Using Full Non-indexical Conditioning\\[18pt]}
43:
44: {\large Radford M. Neal}\\[3pt]
45: Department of Statistics and Department of Computer Science \\
46: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada \\
47: \texttt{http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/$\sim$radford/} \\
48: \texttt{radford@stat.utoronto.ca}\\[10pt]
49:
50: 23 August 2006
51: \end{center}
52:
53: \vspace{8pt}
54:
55: \noindent \textbf{Abstract.} I consider the puzzles arising from four
56: interrelated problems involving ``anthropic'' reasoning, and in
57: particular the ``Self-Sampling Assumption'' (SSA) --- that one should
58: reason as if one were randomly chosen from the set of all observers in
59: a suitable reference class. The problem of Freak Observers might
60: appear to force acceptance of SSA if any empirical evidence is to be
61: credited. The Sleeping Beauty problem arguably shows that one should
62: also accept the ``Self-Indication Assumption'' (SIA) --- that one
63: should take one's own existence as evidence that the number of
64: observers is more likely to be large than small. But this assumption
65: produces apparently absurd results in the Presumptuous Philosopher
66: problem. Without SIA, however, a definitive refutation of the
67: counterintuitive Doomsday Argument seems difficult. I\nolinebreak{}
68: show that these problems are satisfyingly resolved by applying the
69: principle that one should always condition on \textit{all} evidence
70: --- not just on the fact that you are an intelligent observer, or that
71: you are human, but on the fact that you are a human with a specific
72: set of memories. This ``Full Non-indexical Conditioning'' (FNC)
73: approach usually produces the same results as assuming both SSA and
74: SIA, with a sufficiently broad reference class, while avoiding their
75: \textit{ad hoc} aspects. I argue that the results of FNC are correct
76: using the device of hypothetical ``companion'' observers, whose
77: existence clarifies what principles of reasoning are valid.
78: I\nolinebreak{} conclude by discussing how one can use FNC to infer
79: how densely we should expect intelligent species to occur, and by
80: examining recent anthropic arguments in inflationary and string theory
81: cosmology.
82:
83: %\newpage
84: \vspace*{8pt}
85:
86: \section{\hspace*{-7pt}Introduction}\label{sec-intro}\vspace*{-10pt}
87:
88: Accounting for selection effects is clearly necessary when drawing
89: conclusions from empirical data. A poll conducted by telephone, for
90: example, will not tell us the opinions of people who don't have
91: telephones. This simple observation has been seen by some, beginning
92: with Brandon Carter (1974), as having profound cosmological
93: implications, expressed as the Anthropic Principle --- ``what we can
94: expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions necessary for
95: our presence as observers''. One typical cosmological application of
96: the Anthropic Principle is in ``explaining'' the observed values of
97: physical constants by assuming that they take on all possible values
98: in a multiplicity of universes, but that we of course must observe
99: values that are compatible with the existence of life. A related use
100: of the Anthropic Principle is to deny that a cosmological theory in
101: which life is common should be considered more probable (other things
102: being equal) than one in which life is rare, as long as the latter
103: theory gives high probability to the existence of at least one
104: intelligent observer.
105:
106: There is a large literature on the Anthropic Principle, much of it too
107: confused to address. A coherent probabilistic account of the issues
108: involved has been presented by Nick Bostrom (2002, 2005), whose views
109: of the subject I consider worth critiquing. Ken Olum's (2002, 2004)
110: views are also interesting, and are sometimes closer to my own.
111: Leonard Susskind (2006) and Leo Smolin (2006) have contrasting views
112: on the cosmological implications of the Anthropic Principle, which I
113: discuss at the end of this paper.
114:
115:
116: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}Four puzzles and two assumptions}\vspace*{-5pt}
117:
118: One formalization of the intuition regarding
119: observer selection effects is what Bostrom calls the
120: ``Self-Sampling Assumption'' (SSA):
121: \bqt
122: (SSA) One should reason as if one were a random sample from the
123: set of all observers in one's reference class. (Bostrom 2002, p.~57)
124: \eqt
125: Bostrom regards this as a preliminary formulation; in particular,
126: he later considers more fine-grained ``observer moments''. However,
127: all forms of SSA require some specification of an appropriate
128: ``reference class'' (eg, all humans, or all intelligent observers), and hence
129: are poorly defined if no precise basis for specifying such a class is given.
130:
131: Despite this difficulty, something like SSA might appear to be essential
132: in order to deal with the Freak Observers problem:
133: \bqt
134: How can vast-world cosmologies have \textit{any} observational
135: consequences \textit{at all}? We shall show that these cosmologies
136: imply, or give very high probability to, the proposition that
137: every possible observation is in fact made. (Bostrom 2002, p.~52)
138: \eqt
139: Bostrom argues that in a sufficiently large universe, brains in any
140: possible state will be emitted as Hawking radiation from black holes,
141: or condense from gas clouds as a result of large thermal fluctuations.
142: We need not consider such extreme possibilities in order to
143: see a problem, however. Scientific experiments commonly have some
144: small probably of producing incorrect results for more mundane reasons.
145: In a large enough universe, it is likely that \textit{some} observer
146: has made a misleading observation of any quantity of interest.
147: So, for example, that some observer in the universe
148: has made observations that with high confidence could be produced only
149: if the cosmic microwave background radiation is anisotropic is
150: \textit{no reason at all} to think that the background
151: radiation is actually anisotropic. If we are to draw any conclusions
152: from observations we make, we need to see them not just as
153: observations that have been made, but as observations that have been
154: made \textit{by us}. Bostrom argues that SSA together with the fact
155: that most observations made are not misleading then allows us to
156: conclude that our observations are likely to be correct.
157:
158: However, if we accept SSA, we are led to the Doomsday Argument
159: expounded by John Leslie (1996), who attributes it to Carter. The
160: Doomsday Argument says that your ordinary estimate of the chance of
161: early human extinction (based on factors such as your assessment of
162: the probability of an asteroid colliding with earth) should be
163: increased to account for an observer selection effect. It is claimed
164: that the circumstance of your being (roughly) the 60 billionth human
165: to ever exist is more likely if there will never be more than a few
166: hundred billion humans than if there will be hundreds of trillions of
167: humans, as will be the case if humanity survives and colonizes the
168: galaxy. This argument implicitly assumes SSA. (If the reference
169: class is all intelligent observers, the argument requires that
170: uncertainty in time of extinction be shared with other intelligent
171: species.)
172:
173: Although Leslie (1996), Carter (2004), and some others accept the
174: Doomsday Argument as valid, I take it to be absurd, primarily because
175: the answer it produces depends arbitrarily on the choice of reference
176: class. Bostrom (2002) argues that this choice is analogous to a
177: choice of prior in Bayesian inference, which many are untroubled by.
178: However, a Bayesian prior reflects beliefs about the world. A choice
179: of reference class has no connection to factual beliefs, but instead
180: reflects an ethical judgement, if it reflects anything. It is thus
181: unreasonable for such a choice to influence our beliefs about facts of
182: the world.
183:
184: The challenge is therefore to explain exactly why the Doomsday
185: Argument is invalid, without also destroying our ability to draw
186: conclusion from empirical data despite the possibility of freak
187: observers. Many refutations of the Doomsday Argument have been
188: attempted, but as argued by Bostrom (2002, Chapter 7), most of these
189: refutations are themselves flawed. In particular, it is not enough to
190: adduce plausible-sounding principles that if correct would defuse the
191: Doomsday Argument if these same principles produce unacceptable
192: results in other contexts.
193:
194: One way of avoiding the conclusion of the Doomsday Argument is to
195: accept the ``Self-Indication Assumption'' (SIA) --- that we should
196: take our own existence as evidence that the number of observers in our
197: reference class is more likely to be large than small. The effect of
198: SIA is to cancel the effect of SSA in the Doomsday Argument, leaving
199: our beliefs about human extinction unchanged from whatever they were
200: originally. I refer to this combination as SSA+SIA, and to SSA with a
201: denial of SIA as SSA$-$SIA. Bostrom (2002) argues that SIA cannot be
202: correct because of the Presumptuous Philosopher problem. Consider two
203: cosmological theories, A and B, of equal plausibility in light of
204: ordinary evidence. Suppose theory A predicts that there are about ten
205: trillion intelligent species in the universe, whereas theory B
206: predicts that there are only about ten intelligent species. A
207: presumptuous philosopher who accepts SIA would decide that theory A
208: was a trillion times more likely than theory B, and would continue to
209: believe theory A despite virtually any experimental evidence against
210: it, since the chance that the experiments apparently refuting A were
211: fraudulently or incompetently performed, or produced misleading
212: results just by chance, is surely much greater than one in a trillion.
213:
214: Denying SIA also seems as if it might lead to problems, however. The
215: Sleeping Beauty problem (Elga 2000) sets up a situation in which the
216: flip of a coin determines whether an observer experiences a situation
217: once, if the coin lands Heads, or twice (the second time with no
218: memory of the first), if the coin lands Tails. Logic analogous to
219: accepting SSA+SIA leads one to conclude that upon experiencing this
220: situation, the observer should believe with probability 1/3 that the
221: coin landed Heads, whereas SSA$-$SIA leads one to conclude that the
222: observer should assess the probability of Heads as being 1/2.
223: Although some have argued that 1/2 is the correct answer (Lewis 2001,
224: Bostrom 2006), the arguments that 1/3 is the correct answer appear to
225: me to be conclusive. These include an argument based on betting
226: considerations, and another argument I detail below. One might
227: therefore be reluctant to abandon SIA.
228:
229: To summarize, accepting SSA+SIA produces answers regarding Freak
230: Observers, Sleeping Beauty, and the Doomsday Argument that I consider
231: reasonable, but seems to produce unreasonable results for the
232: Presumptuous Philosopher problem. SSA$-$SIA also resolves the problem
233: of Freak Observers, and produces what might seem like reasonable
234: results for the Presumptuous Philosopher problem, but produces results
235: I consider wrong regarding Sleeping Beauty and the Doomsday Argument.
236:
237:
238: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}Resolving the puzzles}\vspace*{-5pt}
239:
240: In this paper, I show that this dilemma can be resolved by abandoning
241: both SSA and SIA. Both are \textit{ad hoc} devices with no convincing
242: rationale, and both require a ``reference class'' of observers, the
243: selection of which is quite arbitrary. Instead, I advocate
244: consistently applying the general principle that one should condition
245: on \textit{all} the evidence available, including all the details of
246: one's memory, but without considering ``indexical'' information
247: regarding one's place in the universe (as opposed to what the universe
248: contains). I call this approach ``Full Non-indexical Conditioning''
249: (FNC).
250:
251: The results using FNC are the same as those found using SSA+SIA, when
252: it is clear how to apply the latter method. As the problems I
253: consider will illustrate, however, FNC is a more general and more
254: natural method of inference, and has a clearer justification.
255:
256: To test whether the conclusions found by using FNC or by using
257: alternative principles are correct, I introduce the device of
258: ``companion'' observers. For the Sleeping Beauty problem, this device
259: provides further evidence that the correct answer is obtained by FNC
260: (and by SSA+SIA), whereas the answer produced by applying SSA$-$SIA in
261: the manner previously done is incorrect. Consideration of companion
262: observers also shows that SSA$-$SIA produces unacceptable results when
263: used with certain reference classes, including the narrow reference
264: classes that have previously been used for the Sleeping Beauty
265: problem.
266:
267: When considering the Freak Observers and Presumptuous Philosopher
268: problems, I advocate restricting consideration to cosmological
269: theories in which the universe may be very large, but not so large
270: that it is likely to contain multiple observers with exactly the same
271: memories. The problem of Freak Observers can then be resolved using
272: FNC, without any need for SSA. I argue that as a general
273: methodological principle, one must be cautious of pushing thought
274: experiments to extremes, as this has produced spurious paradoxical
275: results in other contexts. I do consider the possibility of infinite
276: universes later, in connection with inflationary cosmology.
277:
278: I argue that there are actually two versions of the Presumptuous
279: Philosopher problem, with possibly different answers. When comparing
280: theories differing in the density of observers, but not in the size of
281: the universe, consideration of companion observers provides good
282: reason to doubt the results found using SSA$-$SIA, whereas the results
283: of applying SSA+SIA or FNC appear correct. I argue that no clear
284: conclusions can be drawn from the Presumptuous Philosopher problem
285: when the theories compared differ in the size of the universe. The
286: Presumptuous philosopher problem therefore fails to provide a reason
287: to reject SSA+SIA or FNC.
288:
289:
290: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}Applying FNC to cosmology}\vspace*{-5pt}
291:
292: After showing that FNC provides reasonable answers for each of the
293: four problems described above, I use FNC to estimate how densely we
294: should expect intelligent observers to occur in the galaxy. This
295: discussion is not entirely \textit{a~priori}, but is based also on the
296: observed lack of extraterrestrials in our vicinity, both now, and as
297: far as we can tell, in the past. The results I obtain shed some light
298: on the ``Fermi Paradox'' --- there are reasons to think
299: extraterrestrials should be common in the universe, but if so, where
300: are they? My conclusions imply some pessimism regarding our future
301: prospects, but this is of a milder degree than that produced by the
302: Doomsday Argument, and follows from empirical evidence, not anthropic
303: reasoning.
304:
305: I conclude by discussing the implications of FNC for anthropic
306: arguments relating to inflationary cosmology, which favours a universe
307: or universes of infinite extent, and to cosmologies based on string
308: theory, in which a multiplicity of universes populate a ``landscape''
309: of differing physical laws.
310:
311:
312: \section{\hspace*{-7pt}Methodology}\label{sec-method}\vspace*{-10pt}
313:
314: Before discussing the four problems of anthropic reasoning mentioned
315: above, a general examination of the methodology to be employed seems
316: desirable.
317:
318:
319: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}The nature of probabilities}\vspace*{-5pt}
320:
321: First, since all these problems involve probabilistic answers, one may
322: ask what these probabilities mean. I interpret probabilities as
323: justified subjective degrees of belief --- subjective in that they
324: depend on the information (including prior information) available to
325: the subject, and justified in that they follow from correct principles
326: of reasoning, rather than being capricious.
327:
328: Probabilistic beliefs about scientific hypotheses (eg, whether or not
329: earth-like planets are common in the universe) are based partly on our
330: prior assessments of plausibility. Often, such hypotheses are guesses
331: about the implications of some more fundamental theory, whose true
332: implications cannot be computed exactly, but for which approximations
333: and mathematical intuition provide some guide. We modify these prior
334: beliefs according to how successfully these hypotheses account for
335: observations (eg, of whether nearby stars have planets).
336:
337: The probabilistic nature of most predictions may be due to at least four
338: sources:\vspace{-6pt}
339: \begin{enumerate}
340: \item[1)] Inherent randomness in physical phenomena.
341: \item[2)] Ignorance about the initial conditions of physical phenomena.
342: \item[3)] Ignorance about our place in the universe.
343: \item[4)] Inability to fully deduce the consequences of a theory.\vspace*{-6pt}
344: \end{enumerate}
345: These possible sources of uncertainty are not mutually exclusive.
346: At least (1), (2), and (4) are common sources of uncertainty in
347: ordinary scientific reasoning. One's interpretation of
348: quantum mechanics determines whether ``random'' quantum phenomena
349: are seen as examples of (1), in the Copenhagen interpretation,
350: or of (3), in the Many Worlds interpretation. Leaving aside the
351: technicalities of the interpretation of this particular theory, one
352: might generally take the ontological position that any apparently random
353: choice is actually made in all possible ways, in parallel universes, all
354: of which are real (though perhaps with different ``weights'',
355: corresponding to the probabilities of the choices), thereby
356: converting physical randomness to ignorance about which parallel
357: universe we are in.
358:
359: In trying to resolve the puzzles of anthropic reasoning addressed in
360: the paper, it seems best to not also attempt to resolve issues
361: regarding the nature of probability in physical theories. I will look
362: for a solution based on fairly common sense notions, presuming that
363: these will in essence survive any final resolution of issues such as
364: the interpretation of quantum mechanics. In thought experiments, I
365: will follow convention by usually talking about choices that are
366: determined by a coin flip, whose randomness likely derives from
367: source~(2). The reader may, however, replace this with uncertainty of
368: another type, such as whether the 1,341,735'th digit of $\pi$ is even
369: or odd, assuming that this digit is not already known to the people
370: involved.
371:
372:
373: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}Indexical information and
374: reference classes}\vspace*{-5pt}\label{sec-idx}
375:
376: A central feature of anthropic reasoning is the use of ``indexical''
377: information that certain observations were not just made, but were
378: made \textit{by you}. Another expression of this concept is that you
379: should consider not just ``possible worlds'', but ``possible
380: \textit{centred} worlds'', in which your location in the universe is
381: specified (Lewis 1979).
382:
383: Both SSA and SIA involve the indexical information that \textit{you}
384: are members of a certain reference class. The conclusions that follow
385: from these principles individually are sensitive to the choice of this
386: reference class. Interestingly, however, when \textit{both} SSA and
387: SIA are assumed, this dependence disappears, as long as the reference
388: class is broad enough to encompass all observers who could possibly
389: have observed what you have observed.
390:
391: Let $C$ and $C'$ be two references classes of observers. Let $D$ be
392: the set of observers who have observed the same data as you have. I
393: will assume here that $D \subseteq C$ and $D \subseteq C'$ --- ie, the
394: data you observed indicates that you yourself are a member of both of
395: these reference classes. I will also use the symbol $D$ to denote the
396: event that you are in the set $D$. Let $A$ and $B$ be two
397: mutually-exclusive hypotheses about the universe, each of which
398: specifies the numbers of observers in $C$, $C'$, and $D$. Suppose that
399: based on prior information of the usual sort, $P(A) = P(B) = 1/2$. If
400: $A$ is true, the number of observers in class $C$ is $|C|_A$ and the
401: number in class $C'$ is $|C'|_A$; if $B$ is true, these numbers are
402: $|C|_B$ and $|C'|_B$. If $A$ is true, the number of observers in $D$ is
403: $|D|_A$; if $B$ is true, this number is $|D|_B$.
404:
405: If we assume SSA with reference class $C$, but not SIA, the
406: probability of hypothesis $A$ given the observed data is\vspace*{-4pt}
407: \beq
408: P(A\,|\,D) & = & { P(A)\,P(D\,|\,A) \over
409: P(A)\,P(D\,|\,A) \ +\ P(B)\,P(D\,|\,B)} \\[6pt]
410: & = & { (1/2)\, (|D|_A/|C|_A) \over
411: (1/2)\, (|D|_A/|C|_A)\ +\ (1/2)\, (|D|_B/|C|_B) }
412: \\[-6pt]\nonumber
413: \eeq
414: If we instead use reference class $C'$, $P(A\,|\,D)$ will be given
415: by this formula with $|C'|_A$ and $|C'|_B$ replacing $|C|_A$ and $|C|_B$.
416: The result will in general be different.
417:
418: However, if we assume SSA+SIA, the prior probabilities for
419: $A$ and $B$ are modified in proportion to the number of observers
420: they imply are in the reference class. This gives the following
421: formula for $P(A\,|\,D)$ when the reference class is $C$:
422: \beq
423: P(A\,|\,D) &\!\! = \!\!& { (|C|_A/2)\, (|D|_A/|C|_A) \over
424: (|C|_A/2)\, (|D|_A/|C|_A)\ +\ (|C|_B/2)\, (|D|_B/|C|_B) }
425: \ = \ { (1/2)\, |D|_A \over (1/2)\,|D|_A\ +\ (1/2)\,|D|_B }
426: \ \ \ \ \ \
427: \eeq
428: Since $|C|_A$ and $|C|_B$ cancel, the identical result is obtained if $C'$ is
429: used as the reference class.
430:
431: This lack of dependence on the reference class suggests that even if
432: the right result is obtained by assuming both SSA and SIA, the joint
433: affirmation of these two principles may not be the most illuminating
434: way of describing the logic leading to this result.
435:
436:
437: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}Full Non-indexical Conditioning
438: (FNC)}\label{sec-fnc}\vspace*{-5pt}
439:
440: I advocate probabilistic reasoning by the standard method of fully
441: conditioning on all information that you possess. Of course, in most
442: ordinary circumstances, you can ignore much information that you know
443: is not relevant to the problem --- eg, when predicting tomorrow's
444: weather, you should condition on the current barometric pressure (if
445: you know it), but there is no need to also condition on the name of
446: your kindergarten teacher (even if you still remember it). When in
447: doubt, however, it is always correct to conditional on additional
448: information, since if this information is in fact irrelevant,
449: conditioning on it will not change the result.
450:
451: When dealing with puzzling instances of anthropic reasoning, what is
452: relevant and irrelevant is unclear, so I maintain that you should
453: condition on \textit{everything} you know --- your entire set of
454: memories --- to be sure of getting the right answer. You might also
455: condition on the indexical information that these are \textit{your}
456: memories. However, I will here consider what happens if you ignore
457: such indexical information, conditioning only on the fact that
458: \textit{someone} in the universe with your memories exists. I refer
459: to this procedure as ``Full Non-indexical Conditioning'' (FNC).
460:
461: Some ordinary situations might appear to require use of indexical
462: information, but a closer examination shows that FNC produces the
463: correct answer in these cases. For instance, suppose that you and
464: some number of other people are recruited as subjects for an
465: experiment. You do not know the number of subjects for this
466: experiment, but based on your knowledge of the budget limitations in
467: the field of experimental philosophy, you have a prior distribution
468: for this number, $N$, that is uniform over the integers from 1 to 20.
469: You and the other subjects are taken to separate rooms, without seeing
470: each other, where you are instructed to flip a fair coin three times and
471: record the sequence of Heads and Tails obtained. You record the
472: sequence HTT. On the basis of this new data, what should be your
473: posterior distribution for $N$?
474:
475: An invalid way of reasoning here is to condition on the fact that the
476: sequence HTT was recorded by a subject of the experiment, and
477: on that basis conclude that your posterior distribution should
478: be
479: \beq
480: P(N=n \,|\, \mbox{HTT recorded})
481: & = &
482: {P(N=n)\ P(\mbox{HTT recorded}\,|\,N=n) \over
483: \sum_{n'=1}^{\infty} P(N=n')\ P(\mbox{HTT recorded}\,|\,N=n')} \\[5pt]
484: & = &
485: {P(N=n)\ (1 \ -\ P(\mbox{HTT not recorded}\,|\,N=n)) \over
486: \sum_{n'=1}^{\infty} P(N=n')\
487: (1 \ -\ P(\mbox{HTT not recorded}\,|\,N=n'))}\ \ \ \ \ \\[5pt]
488: & = &
489: {(1/20)\ (1 \ -\ (1 - 2^{-3})^n) \over
490: \sum_{n'=1}^{20}\, (1/20)\ (1 \ -\ (1 - 2^{-3})^{n'})} \\[-6pt]\nonumber
491: \eeq
492: These probabilities vary from 0.0093 for $n=1$ to 0.0690 for $n=20$.
493: Intuitively, these probabilities seem wrong, for two reasons. First,
494: since you had to record \textit{some} sequence of flips, it seems that
495: knowledge of the particular sequence you recorded shouldn't change your
496: beliefs about $N$.
497: On the other hand, it seems that the fact that \textit{you} were recruited for
498: the experiment should increase the probability that there are many subjects
499: (by more than happens above).
500:
501: The problem is fixed if you take account of the indexical information
502: that it was \textit{you} who recorded the sequence \mbox{HTT}.
503: The probability of this sequence being obtained by you is $2^{-3}$
504: regardless of $N$. On the other hand, if the pool of possible
505: experimental subjects is of size $M$ (assumed to be greater
506: than 20), the probability that you will be recruited as a subject if
507: there are $n$ subjects is $n/M$. The posterior distribution for $N$ that
508: results is
509: \beq
510: P(N=n\,|\,\mbox{You were recruited and recorded HTT})
511: & = & {(1/20)\ (n/M)\ 2^{-3} \over
512: \sum_{n'=1}^{20}\, (1/20)\ (n'/M)\ 2^{-3}} \\[5pt]
513: & = & \textstyle n\ /\ \sum\nolimits_{n'=1}^{20}\, n' \ \ =\ \ n\ /\ 210
514: \eeq
515: These probabilities vary from 0.0048 for $n=1$ to 0.0952 for $n=20$.
516:
517: This answer is also obtained if we condition on \textit{all}
518: non-indexical information. We know not just that the sequence HTT
519: was recorded, but also that it was recorded by a subject of your age,
520: with your hair colour, who went to a school just like yours, who has
521: your taste in music, who has the same opinion of rice pudding as you
522: do, etc. The probability that the $i$'th subject recruited for the
523: experiment will have all these characteristics is some very small
524: number, $\epsilon$. The probability that the $i$'th subject has these
525: characteristics and also records coin flips of HTT is
526: $\epsilon\, 2^{-3}$.
527: Since this probability is extremely small, the probability that \textit{any}
528: of $n$ subjects will have these characteristics and record those flips
529: is very well approximated by $n\,\epsilon\,2^{-3}$. Conditioning on
530: all non-indexical information therefore produces the following
531: posterior distribution for $N$:
532: \beq
533: P(N=n\,|\,\mbox{all non-indexical information})
534: & = & {(1/20)\ n\, \epsilon\, 2^{-3} \over
535: \sum_{n'=1}^{20}\, (1/20)\ n\, \epsilon\, 2^{-3}} \\[5pt]
536: & = & \textstyle n\ /\ \sum\nolimits_{n'=1}^{20}\, n' \ \ =\ \ n\ /\ 210
537: \eeq
538: This is the same result as found above using indexical information.
539:
540: Use of indexical information therefore seems unnecessary in ordinary
541: situations, since the non-indexical information regarding your
542: memories is normally sufficient to uniquely identify you. SSA can
543: perhaps be seen as arising from what might be called ``Full Indexical
544: Conditioning'', in which we assume that in addition to their memories,
545: everyone also has some unique ``essence'', and everyone in some sense
546: knows what their own essence is. One could then argue that you should
547: condition not only on your memories, but also on having your own
548: essence, which by assumption is shared with no one else. Conditioning
549: on more than FNC rather than less seems the only way of reconciling
550: SSA$-$SIA with the fundamental principle that probabilistic
551: inferences should be based on all known information. I will
552: illustrate this idea when discussing Sleeping Beauty in
553: Section~\ref{sec-beauty-fnc}. It seems preferable to me to not
554: introduce such mystical ``essences'' unless ignoring them can be shown
555: to produce implausible results. Moreover, if one does think in terms
556: of such essences, it seems hard not to proceed to acceptance of SIA as
557: well as SSA, which effectively renders thoughts of essences pointless,
558: as I will now explain.
559:
560: It turns out that if the universe is not excessively huge, using
561: SSA+SIA produces the same results as using FNC. Consider the
562: situation with two hypotheses, $A$ and $B$, discussed above in
563: Section~\ref{sec-idx}. Assume now that you condition on all
564: information you remember, and that these memories are extensive enough
565: that there is only a small probability that an observer with your
566: memories would exist, under either hypothesis. Let $|C|_A$ and
567: $|C|_B$ be the numbers of observers in some suitable reference class
568: (whose members ``might have had'' your memories) if hypotheses $A$ and
569: $B$ are true, respectively. Let $\epsilon_A$ and $\epsilon_B$ be
570: the (extremely small) probabilities that a particular observer in this
571: reference class will have your memories under hypotheses $A$ and $B$.
572: Suppose that you assess the prior probability of $A$ and $B$ as
573: $P(A)=P(B)=1/2$, where this prior is based on your scientific
574: knowledge, but not on the multitude of details of your life that make
575: you unique. Applying SIA will shift these priors to
576: $P(A)\,=\,(|C|_A/2)\,/\,(|C|_A/2+|C|_B/2)$ and
577: $P(B)\,=\,(|C|_B/2)\,/\,(|C|_A/2+|C|_B/2)$. Applying SSA, the
578: probability that you will have your memories is $\epsilon_A$ if
579: hypothesis $A$ is true, and $\epsilon_B$ if hypothesis $B$ is true.
580: The result of applying both SIA and SSA is therefore
581: \beq
582: \lefteqn{P(A\,|\,\mbox{all your memories})}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \nonumber
583: \\[2pt]
584: & = &
585: { \epsilon_A\ (|C|_A/2)\,/\,(|C|_A/2+|C|_B/2) \over
586: \epsilon_A\ (|C|_A/2)\,/\,(|C|_A/2+|C|_B/2)\ +\
587: \epsilon_B\ (|C|_B/2)\,/\,(|C|_A/2+|C|_B/2)}\ \ \ \\[5pt]
588: & = & { \epsilon_A\, |C|_A \over \epsilon_A\, |C|_A \ +\ \epsilon_B\, |C|_B}
589: \\[-10pt] \nonumber
590: \eeq
591: Provided that $\epsilon_A\,|C|_A$ and $\epsilon_B\,|C|_B$ are both close to
592: zero (as they will be if the universe is not excessively huge), the same result
593: will be obtained by applying FNC --- $\epsilon_A\,|C|_A$
594: and $\epsilon_B\,|C|_B$ are then very close to the probabilities of \textit{any}
595: observer with your memories existing under hypotheses $A$ and $B$, respectively,
596: which given the equal prior probabilities of $A$ and $B$ produces the same
597: result as above found using SSA and SIA.
598:
599: FNC is a more general principle of inference than SSA and SIA,
600: however, since it does not require any notion of a reference class.
601: FNC requires only that there be some way of computing the probability
602: that an observer with your memories will exist. As was done above, it
603: is convenient to separate your scientific memories (which may be
604: shared with many others) from the rest of your memories, which make
605: you a unique observer. Conditioning on your scientific memories
606: converts whatever primitive prior distribution you had regarding
607: scientific theories to what would ordinarily be regarded as your
608: prior. We can then consider how this prior is altered by conditioning
609: on subsequent scientific observations and on the memories that make
610: you unique.
611:
612:
613: Note that the probabilities involved in FNC need not derive from some
614: random physical process, but may simply reflect ignorance or an
615: inability to fully deduce the consequences of known facts. This will
616: be discussed further in Section~\ref{sec-density-fnc}.
617:
618:
619: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}Assessing arguments by considering companion
620: observers}\label{sec-companions}\vspace*{-5pt}
621:
622: If your opinions differ from those of an intelligent friend who
623: possesses the same information as you, you should question the
624: validity of the reasoning that led you to these opinions. Ultimately,
625: after exchanging information and fully discussing the matter with your
626: friend, you should expect to come to the same conclusions regarding
627: factual matters. Persistent disagreements might seem possible due to
628: differing prior beliefs, but as discussed by Hanson (2006), this is
629: possible for fully rational observers only if they disagree about the
630: processes by which they came to hold these prior beliefs. Agreement
631: with hypothetical friends has been used as a test of reasoning in the
632: past --- in particular, Nozick (1969) uses it in his discussion of
633: Newcomb's Problem, as described in the next section.
634:
635: I propose here to test the validity of anthropic arguments by
636: comparing the conclusions of such arguments with those that imaginary
637: ``companion'' observers would reach, using the same principles of
638: reasoning (eg, acceptance of SSA but not SIA). Of course, it is
639: possible that several incompatible sets of principles might each lead
640: to consistency with the conclusions of companions reasoning by these
641: same principles, so this test may sometimes fail to fully resolve the
642: issues.
643:
644: By considering possible companions, a general constraint on the use of
645: SSA$-$SIA can be derived. Suppose there exist two types of
646: observers, $X$ and $Y$. These observers are considering two theories,
647: $A$ and $B$, according to which the numbers of observers of these
648: types are $|X|_A$ and $|Y|_A$, for theory $A$, and $|X|_B$ and
649: $|Y|_B$, for theory $B$. There is a pairing observers of type $X$ with
650: companion observers of type $Y$, in which each observer is paired with at
651: most one companion observer. If $|X|=|Y|$, all observers have
652: companions; otherwise, some observers of the more numerous type are
653: unpaired.
654:
655: Suppose that all observers consider theories $A$ and $B$ to be equally
656: likely based on the usual sorts of evidence (ie, without applying SSA
657: or SIA). Now consider what those observers with companions will
658: conclude by applying SSA$-$SIA using as their reference class only
659: observers of their own type, and taking account of their knowledge
660: that they were paired with a companion observer of the other type.
661: Observers of type $X$ will reason that their chance of having a
662: companion observer is $\min(1,|Y|_A/|X|_A)$ if theory $A$ is true,
663: and $\min(1,|Y|_B/|X|_B)$ if theory $B$ is true. The odds an observer
664: of type $X$ assigns to theory $A$ over theory $B$ will therefore be
665: \beq
666: {\min(1,|Y|_A/|X|_A) \over \min(1,|Y|_B/|X|_B)} & = &
667: \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
668: 1 & \mbox{if $|Y|_A \ge |X|_A$ and $|Y|_B \ge |X|_B$} \\[4pt]
669: |Y|_A\ /\ |X|_A & \mbox{if $|Y|_A \le |X|_A$ and $|Y|_B \ge |X|_B$} \\[4pt]
670: |X|_B\ /\ |Y|_B & \mbox{if $|Y|_A \ge |X|_A$ and $|Y|_B \le |X|_B$} \\[4pt]
671: |X|_B|Y|_A\ /\ |X|_A|Y|_B
672: & \mbox{if $|Y|_A \le |X|_A$ and $|Y|_B \le |X|_B$}
673: \end{array}\right.\ \ \ \
674: \label{eq-comp-odds-X}
675: \eeq
676: whereas for an observer of type $Y$, the odds in favour of theory $A$
677: would be
678: \beq
679: {\min(1,|X|_A/|Y|_A) \over \min(1,|X|_B/|Y|_B)} & = &
680: \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
681: |X|_A|Y|_B\ /\ |X|_B|Y|_A
682: & \mbox{if $|Y|_A \ge |X|_A$ and $|Y|_B \ge |X|_B$} \\[4pt]
683: |Y|_B\ /\ |X|_B & \mbox{if $|Y|_A \le |X|_A$ and $|Y|_B \ge |X|_B$} \\[4pt]
684: |X|_A\ /\ |Y|_A & \mbox{if $|Y|_A \ge |X|_A$ and $|Y|_B \le |X|_B$} \\[4pt]
685: 1
686: & \mbox{if $|Y|_A \le |X|_A$ and $|Y|_B \le |X|_B$}
687: \end{array}\right.\ \ \ \
688: \label{eq-comp-odds-Y}
689: \eeq
690: Since these are generally not equal, we see that companions will disagree
691: in this scenario if they each reason with SSA$-$SIA using as their
692: reference class only observers of their own type.
693:
694: However, these companion observers will agree if they apply SSA$-$SIA
695: using as their reference class all observers of both types, because of
696: the effects of a Doomsday-like argument, of a sort discussed further
697: in Section~\ref{sec-gendoom}. Observers of type $X$ will reason that
698: their chances, applying SSA, of being of type $X$ are
699: $|X|_A/(|X|_A+|Y|_A)$ if theory $A$ is true, and $|X|_B/(|X|_B+|Y|_B)$
700: if theory $B$ is true. The odds in favour of theory $A$ are therefore
701: multiplied by $(|X|_A/|X|_B)\ \times\ (|X|_B+|Y|_B)/(|X|_A+|Y|_A)$. Multiplying
702: equation~(\ref{eq-comp-odds-X}) by this factor, we get that an observer
703: of type $X$ having a companion will consider the odds in favour of theory $A$
704: to be
705: \beq
706: {|X|_B+|Y|_B \over |X|_A+|Y|_A}\ \times\
707: \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
708: |X|_A\ /\ |X|_B\ & \mbox{if $|Y|_A \ge |X|_A$ and $|Y|_B \ge |X|_B$} \\[4pt]
709: |Y|_A\ /\ |X|_B\ & \mbox{if $|Y|_A \le |X|_A$ and $|Y|_B \ge |X|_B$} \\[4pt]
710: |X|_A\ /\ |Y|_B\ & \mbox{if $|Y|_A \ge |X|_A$ and $|Y|_B \le |X|_B$} \\[4pt]
711: |Y|_A\ /\ |Y|_B\ & \mbox{if $|Y|_A \le |X|_A$ and $|Y|_B \le |X|_B$}
712: \end{array}\right\}\ \ \ \
713: \eeq
714: Similarly, multiplying equation~(\ref{eq-comp-odds-Y}) by
715: $(|Y|_A/|Y|_B)\ \times\ (|X|_B+|Y|_B)/(|X|_A+|Y|_A)$ gives the
716: odds in favour of theory $A$ for an observer of type $Y$ with a companion,
717: which turn out to be identical to the odds above.
718:
719: This computation shows that requiring consistency with conclusions of
720: a companion imposes a constraint on the reference class used with
721: SSA$-$SIA --- the companions must use the same reference class,
722: which must therefore include both of them. This constraint might be
723: seen as making anthropic arguments based on SSA$-$SIA less arbitrary,
724: and hence more attractive. However, this constraint also makes it
725: harder to apply such arguments, since to chose a suitable reference
726: class, you must know the full set of observers with whom you
727: would expect to agree.
728:
729: In contrast, SSA+SIA produces consistent results even when observers
730: use reference classes that include only their own type of observer,
731: excluding their companion. This may be confirmed by multiplying
732: equation~(\ref{eq-comp-odds-X}) by $|X|_A/|X|_B$ and
733: equation~(\ref{eq-comp-odds-Y}) by $|Y|_A/|Y|_B$, the factors by which
734: SIA modifies the prior odds. Companion observers applying FNC will
735: obviously produce consistent conclusions, since FNC does not involve
736: indexical information, and companions are assumed to share all
737: non-indexical information.
738:
739:
740: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}The dangers of fantastic
741: assumptions}\label{sec-fant}\vspace*{-5pt}
742:
743: Several of the puzzles treated here employ thought experiments, and
744: make other arguments, that are based on hypothetical and perhaps
745: fantastic assumptions. This can sometimes produce spurious
746: conclusions. We may accept a fantastic assumption, on the basis that
747: although it isn't true in reality, it ``might be true'', and then
748: proceed to reason utilizing other premises that are based on the
749: reality that we have implicitly rejected in making the fantastic
750: assumption.
751:
752: Searle's (1980) Chinese Room Argument provides one example. He argues
753: that a computer cannot possibly understand Chinese. Any program that
754: enabled a computer to understand Chinese could in principle be
755: executed by a person in a room who takes inputs from a window, follows
756: certain simple rules for shuffling tokens about, and shoves results
757: out another window. The person executing this program need have no
758: understanding of Chinese to begin with, and is unlikely to acquire any
759: understanding of Chinese by performing the tasks needed to execute
760: this program. So, the argument goes, a computer running such a
761: program will also not really understand Chinese, regardless of whether
762: it might superficially appear to.
763:
764: A common (and in my view, correct) response is that although the person
765: executing the program does not understand Chinese, the system of
766: person plus room is a physical embodiment of another entity that
767: \textit{does} understand Chinese. To this, a defender of the Chinese
768: Room Argument may reply that, in principle, the room is unnecessary ---
769: a person with a sufficiently good memory could execute the program
770: entirely in their head, without the need of any physical tokens. To
771: the subsequent objection that this just means that the new entity is
772: physically contained in the same body as the original person, Harnad
773: (2001) has mockingly replied
774: \bqt
775: \noindent This was tantamount to conjecturing that, as a result of memorizing
776: and manipulating very many meaningless symbols, Chinese-understanding
777: would be induced either consciously in Searle, or,
778: multiple-personality-style, in another, conscious
779: Chinese-understanding entity inside his head of which Searle was
780: unaware.\vspace{5pt}
781:
782: \noindent I will not dwell on any of these heroics; suffice it to say that even
783: Creationism could be saved by ad hoc speculations of this order.
784: \eqt
785: In a seminar I attended in the 1990's, Harnad explained in more
786: detail that the psychiatric literature on multiple personality
787: disorder contains no recorded case of such a second being, with
788: totally different language and other capabilities, existing within
789: someone's head.
790:
791: This is an extreme case of making a fantastic assumption and then
792: reasoning with premises that contradict it. Any program capable of
793: appearing to understand Chinese will very likely require a computer at
794: least as powerful as those available today to execute in real time.
795: Compared to manual execution by a person, today's computers are at
796: least a billion times faster, and have at least a billion times
797: as much readily-available memory.\footnote{I refer here to the speed
798: and memory available when a person consciously carries out the simple
799: tasks needed to execute the steps of a computer program. The
800: computational power that underlies unconscious functions of our brains
801: likely exceeds that of today's computers.} The characteristics of a
802: hypothetical person whose computational abilities are a billion times
803: greater than those of ordinary people are certainly not going to be
804: obvious to us, or deducible from the current psychiatric literature.
805: To assume the existence of such a person and then claim incredulity at
806: a consequence of their existence abuses the hospitality of one's
807: interlocutor in conceding that ``in~principle'' a computer program can
808: be executed manually --- when in reality, this is true only of
809: programs no more than a few pages long, that operate for no more than
810: a few hundred steps.
811:
812: A more subtle example of the dangers of fantastic thought experiments
813: is provided by Newcomb's Problem, first discussed in print by Nozick
814: (1969). We imagine that a wealthy ``Predictor'', who is very good at
815: predicting human behaviour, conducts a ``game'' that operates as
816: follows. A person is randomly selected to participate, and is then
817: shown two boxes. They are told that the first box contains \$1000,
818: and the other box contains either \$1,000,000 or \$0. The participant
819: may either take both boxes, or take just the second box, and receives
820: all the money in the box or boxes they take. The Predictor puts
821: \$1,000,000 in the second box if and only if he predicts that the
822: participant will take only this box. Suppose that you have seen the
823: game played many times, and are convinced that the Predictor's
824: predictions are almost certain to be correct. If you are selected to
825: be a participant in this game, should you take both boxes, or only the
826: second box?
827:
828: The argument for taking only the second box is that you are then
829: almost certain to receive \$1,000,000, whereas if you take both boxes,
830: you almost certainly will receive only \$1000. (Conceivably, you
831: might receive \$1,001,000 if you take both boxes, but only if the
832: Predictor is wrong, which you know is very unlikely.) The argument
833: for taking both boxes is that you will then receive \$1000 more than
834: you would if you took only the second box, regardless of whether the
835: Predictor was right or wrong in his prediction, which he has
836: \textit{already} made. Nozick (1969) favours taking both boxes,
837: strengthening this argument by pointing out that if a friend of yours
838: could see into both boxes, they would certainly advise you to take
839: both of them. Actually, your friend cannot see into the boxes, or if
840: they can, they aren't allowed to advise you, but you know what advice
841: your friend would give if they could, and you should follow this
842: advice.
843:
844: I would find the argument for taking two boxes convincing, if it were
845: not for a matter that seems to have been overlooked in the
846: philosophical literature\footnote{I wrote a paper on this idea twenty years
847: ago, which was rejected by \textit{Mind}, though verbal discussions
848: with philosophers over the years have been more positive. At least
849: two other people have thought of this idea independently --- Scott
850: Aaronson described the idea in a November 2005 blog posting at
851: \texttt{http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/2005/11/dude-its-like-you-read-my-mind.html},
852: and someone going by the name of ``Count Iblis'' wrote about it
853: in a December 2005 blog posting at \texttt{http://countiblis.blogspot.com}.}
854: --- How does the Predictor make such accurate predictions?
855:
856: Superficially, assuming the existence of such an accurate Predictor
857: may not seem too extreme. We all predict other people's actions every
858: day, often successfully. However, we also have a strong sense that we
859: have free will, and that our will is integrated with our whole being
860: --- for example, that any part of our memories can potentially affect
861: our actions. Hence, while some of our actions are easy to predict,
862: other actions could only be predicted with high accuracy by a being
863: who has knowledge of almost every detail of our memories and
864: inclinations, and who uses this knowledge to simulate how we will act
865: in a given situation. To predict whether a participant will take one
866: box or two (which for at least some people must be a difficult
867: behaviour to predict), the Predictor must have some way of measuring
868: with high accuracy the relevant aspects of the participant's brain (at
869: some time prior to when the game is played) and a very powerful
870: computer that can simulate the participant's mental
871: processes.\footnote{Note that we needn't assume that this simulation
872: is absolutely accurate, if we allow that the Predictor may be wrong
873: with some tiny probability. Quite large final error rates would be
874: compatible with the Newcomb scenario as long most errors are
875: introduced by the Predictor's careless assistant, after a highly
876: accurate simulation has been run. Such errors would be uncorrelated
877: with the type of participant, and hence you would not be justified in
878: feeling that you in particular might be able to ``beat the game''.
879: However, errors due to faulty simulation that arise when, for example,
880: a participant thinks of one particular argument would undermine the
881: Newcomb scenario.}
882:
883: Now we can see why Newcomb's Problem involves an extreme fantastic
884: assumption --- the only plausible mechanism for accurate prediction
885: involves brain measurements and simulations that are far beyond our
886: current ability, and that may be impossible in principle, if quantum
887: effects are crucial to how the brain works (since non-destructive
888: copying of quantum states is not possible).\footnote{One might object
889: that some other mechanism for accurate prediction not involving
890: simulation might be possible. However, Nozick specifically excludes
891: mechanisms, such as time travel, that introduce backward causation.
892: The onus is on someone wishing us to take the problem seriously as a
893: paradox to provide at least a hint of how such accurate predictions
894: might be obtained with neither accurate simulation nor backward
895: causation.} This fantastic assumption has a crucial consequence ---
896: the simulation the Predictor conducts in order to predict your choice
897: will (if you accept a functionalist view of consciousness) create
898: another conscious being, and \textit{you have no way of knowing that
899: you are not this being}. If you are the being in the simulation, your
900: ``choice'' has a causal effect on whether the Predictor puts
901: \$1,000,000 or \$0 in the second box. Supposing that the simulated
902: ``you'' has sympathy for the real ``you'', or perhaps that ``you''
903: intended to donate the money to a worthy charity all along, it is now
904: clear that you should take only the second box, since that may cause
905: the real ``you'' to obtain \$1,000,000, and at worse costs the real
906: ``you'' only \$1000. Note that the argument involving advice from a
907: friend loses its force once the situation is really understood. Your
908: friend may not actually be there (if you are being simulated, but he
909: is not), and if he is (and understands the situation), he will advise
910: you to take only the second box.
911:
912: Possible problems with overly fantastic assumptions arise with several
913: of the problems discussed below. We should also be careful to keep
914: the ``companion'' observers of the previous section from becoming too
915: fantastic, at least with respect to their cognitive and other relevant
916: characteristics (though other fantastic aspects may be innocuous).
917:
918:
919: \section{\hspace*{-7pt}Sleeping Beauty}\label{sec-sb}\vspace*{-10pt}
920:
921: The Sleeping Beauty problem is described by Elga (2000). On Sunday,
922: Beauty is put to sleep. On Monday she is woken, then later put to
923: sleep again. While she is awake, she does not have access to any
924: information that would help her infer the day of the week. If a flip
925: of a fair coin lands Tails, Beauty is woken again on Tuesday, but only
926: after she is administered a drug that causes her to forget her Monday
927: awakening (leaving her memories in the same state as they were after
928: falling asleep on Sunday). Again, she obtains no information that
929: would reveal the day of the week. Regardless of how the coin lands,
930: Beauty is woken on Wednesday, and immediately told that the experiment
931: is over. Beauty knows that this is how the experiment is set up.
932: When Beauty wakens before Wednesday, what probability should she
933: assign to the coin landing Heads?
934:
935: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}The $1/2$ and $1/3$ answers}\vspace*{-5pt}
936:
937: Some (eg, Lewis 2001) argue that on Sunday Beauty should certainly
938: assign probability 1/2 to the coin landing Heads, that upon wakening
939: she acquires no additional information (since she knew that she would
940: experience such an awakening regardless of how the coin lands), and
941: that she should therefore still consider the probability of Heads to
942: be 1/2 at this time.
943:
944: Others (eg, Elga 2000) argue instead that Beauty should assign
945: probability 1/3 to the coin landing Heads upon wakening before
946: Wednesday. One argument for this is that if the experiment were
947: repeated many times, 1/3 of the wakenings before Wednesday would occur
948: when the coin lands Heads (since Beauty wakens twice when it lands
949: Tails, and only once when it lands Heads).
950: This view can be reinforced by supposing that on each awakening Beauty
951: is offered a bet in which she wins 2 dollars if the coin lands Tails
952: and loses 3 dollars if it lands Heads. (We suppose that Beauty knows
953: such a bet will always be offered.) Beauty would not accept this bet
954: if she assigns probability 1/2 to Heads. If she assigns a probability
955: of 1/3 to Heads, however, her expected gain is
956: $2\times(2/3)-3\times(1/3) = 1/3$, so she will accept, and if the
957: experiment is repeated many times, she will come out ahead.
958: Furthermore, she can work all this out on Sunday, at which time she
959: will wish herself to accept these bets later on. Accepting the
960: argument that she should assign probability 1/2 to Heads when she is woken
961: later therefore requires that we accept that Beauty should override
962: her previous decision, even though she has no new knowledge that would
963: justify such a change. This seems at least as strange as accepting
964: that Beauty should alter her probability of Heads from 1/2 to 1/3 even
965: though nothing unexpected has apparently happened.
966:
967: A problem with Lewis's argument for the probability of Heads being 1/2
968: arises if we change the experiment so that some time after being woken
969: on Monday, Beauty is told that it is Monday. If she assigned
970: probability 1/2 to Heads just before being told this, standard
971: Bayesian updating of probabilities would lead her to assign
972: probability 2/3 to Heads after being told it is Monday --- the
973: probability of Monday given Heads is~1, whereas the probability of
974: Monday given Tails is 1/2; this factor of two difference shifts the
975: previous equal probabilities for Heads and Tails so that Heads has
976: twice the probability of Tails. This seems ridiculous, however, given
977: that at this point, Beauty knows nothing of relevance that would
978: distinguish her from any other person who has gotten a good night's
979: sleep, and is then asked to predict the toss of a fair coin. That she
980: knows this coin toss will determine whether her memory is erased
981: \textit{in the future} should be of no relevance. Elga's (2000)
982: argument for the 1/3 view is essentially to work backwards from the
983: assumption that Beauty should assign probability 1/2 to Heads if she
984: is in this situation.\footnote{Bostrom (2006) argues that Beauty
985: should assign probability 1/2 to Heads both before and after being
986: told on Monday that it is Monday. He justifies this non-reaction to
987: new information on the basis that there is a shift in reference class
988: on being told that it is Monday. This argument involves the use of
989: narrow reference classes which I argue below are untenable. Bostrom
990: also argues that the betting argument can be defused by further
991: consideration of reference classes and indexical information, but his
992: reasoning applies only if repetitions of the experiment are done with
993: Beauty's memory being erased between each repetition. This is
994: unconvincing, since one can equally well suppose that Beauty remembers
995: how many times the experiment was previously done.}
996:
997:
998: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}Relating Sleeping Beauty to SSA, SIA, and
999: FNC}\label{sec-beauty-fnc}\vspace*{-5pt}
1000:
1001: These differing answers to the Sleeping Beauty problem can be viewed
1002: as consequences of applying SSA+SIA or SSA$-$SIA, with the reference
1003: class being instances of Beauty upon wakening before Wednesday. With
1004: SSA$-$SIA, Heads and Tails are equally likely \textit{a priori},
1005: and Beauty's observations on wakening before Wednesday are equally
1006: likely given Heads or Tails --- if Heads, there is only one possible
1007: wakening, if Tails there are two, and SSA tells us that they are
1008: equally likely, but in any case they do not differ in any identifiable
1009: way. Heads and Tails are therefore still equally likely once Beauty
1010: has woken. If we accept SSA+SIA, however, Heads have probability 1/3
1011: \textit{a priori} (once we are in the position of Beauty after
1012: wakening, and therefore part of the reference class), since Heads
1013: leads to only half as many members of the reference class as Tails.
1014: The observations on wakening are still equally likely given Heads or
1015: Tails, so Beauty's probability of Heads after wakening should remain
1016: 1/3.
1017:
1018: As expected from the discussion in Section~\ref{sec-fnc}, the same
1019: conclusion as SSA+SIA is reached by applying FNC --- simply
1020: conditioning on the full data available to Beauty upon wakening. In
1021: this regard, note that the even though the experiences of Beauty upon
1022: wakening on Monday and upon wakening on Tuesday (if she is woken then)
1023: are identical in all ``relevant'' respects, they will not be
1024: subjectively indistinguishable. On Monday, a fly on the wall may
1025: crawl upwards; on Tuesday, it may crawl downwards. Beauty's
1026: physiological state (heart rate, blood glucose level, etc.) will not
1027: be identical, and will affect her thoughts at least slightly.
1028: Treating these and other differences as random, the probability of
1029: Beauty having \textit{at some time} the exact memories and experiences
1030: she has after being woken this time is twice as great if the coin
1031: lands Tails than if the coin lands Heads, since with Tails there are
1032: two chances for these experiences to occur rather than only one. This
1033: computation assumes that the chance on any given day of Beauty
1034: experiencing \textit{exactly} what she finds herself experiencing is
1035: extremely small, as will be the case in any realistic version of the
1036: experiment.
1037:
1038: We can see for Sleeping Beauty how introduction of the ``essences''
1039: discussed in Section~\ref{sec-fnc} together with ``Full Indexical
1040: Conditioning'' changes the result from that of FNC to that of
1041: SSA$-$SIA. We suppose that instances of Beauty on different days have
1042: different essences. The probability that an instance of Beauty woken
1043: before Wednesday will have both her current memories \textit{and} her
1044: current unique essence is the same whether she is woken once or twice
1045: --- a second awakening doesn't provide a second chance because Beauty
1046: on the other awakening will have the wrong essence. Denying SIA is
1047: equivalent to assuming that the existence of two awakenings would not
1048: increase the probability that an instance of Beauty with her current
1049: essence exists. In the context of this problem, these assumptions
1050: regarding essences seems rather contrived, but perhaps advocates of
1051: SSA$-$SIA might maintain that essences with these characteristics are
1052: more plausible for the other problems discussed in this paper.
1053:
1054:
1055: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}Beauty and the Prince}\vspace*{-5pt}
1056:
1057: Since I maintain that the right results are obtained by using FNC (or
1058: SSA+SIA), I would like to provide further evidence that 1/3 is indeed
1059: the correct probability of Heads. For this purpose, imagine a
1060: ``companion'' of Beauty, the Prince, who is also put to sleep on
1061: Sunday, and woken on Monday. However, unlike Beauty, the Prince is
1062: woken on Tuesday regardless of how the coin lands, after being
1063: administered a drug that causes him to forget his Monday awakening.
1064: Like Beauty, he is always woken on Wednesday and told the experiment
1065: is over. Beauty and the Prince will be in the same room at all times,
1066: and will be free to discuss their situation (if both are awake). All
1067: this is known to both Beauty and the Prince.
1068:
1069: If the Prince is woken before Wednesday and finds that Beauty has also
1070: been woken, what probability should he assign to the coin landing
1071: Heads? Quite clearly, he should assign probability 1/3 to Heads,
1072: since given Heads, the probability of Beauty being woken with him is
1073: 1/2, whereas given Tails this probability is 1. Since the coin is
1074: fair, this factor of two larger probability of what is observed given
1075: Tails should produce a factor of two larger probability of Tails given
1076: the observation that Beauty has been woken too.
1077:
1078: The Prince will tell Beauty of his conclusion. Should Beauty
1079: disagree, and maintain that the probability of Heads is actually 1/2?
1080: Beauty and the Prince have the same information (and even if they
1081: didn't, they would after discussing the situation). Beauty will agree
1082: that the Prince's reasoning is correct, for him. There seem to be no
1083: grounds for her to decide that, for her, the probability should be
1084: different. Furthermore, if we wish, we can disallow discussions
1085: between Beauty and the Prince --- Beauty is intelligent enough to know
1086: what the Prince's conclusion will be without him having to tell her.
1087: Indeed, we can assume that the Prince is hidden from Beauty by a
1088: curtain, as long as she knows he is there. Does it really matter if
1089: we go one step further and eliminate the Prince altogether?
1090:
1091: This contradiction between the conclusions reached by Beauty and the
1092: Prince when they both apply SSA$-$SIA is not surprising in light of
1093: the discussion in Section~\ref{sec-companions}, since the reference
1094: class used by Beauty does not include instances of the Prince, and
1095: vice versa. If instead they both use the reference class of wakenings
1096: before Wednesday of either Beauty or the Prince, the result of
1097: applying SSA$-$SIA changes. Beauty will then reason on wakening
1098: before Wednesday that if the coin landed Heads, the probability that
1099: she will be an instance of Beauty (rather than the Prince) is 1/3,
1100: whereas if the coin landed Tails, this probability will be 2/4, and as
1101: a result assign probability $(1/3)\,/\/(1/3+2/4)\ =\ 2/5$ to Heads.
1102: The Prince reasons on wakening that the probability of his being an
1103: instance of the Prince is 2/3 if the coin landed Heads and 2/4 if it
1104: landed Tails, so the probability of Heads is $(2/3)\,/\,(2/3+2/4)\ =\
1105: 4/7$, equivalent to odds of 4/3 in favour of Heads. When he sees that
1106: Beauty is also awake, his odds shift by a factor of two in favour of
1107: Tails, producing final odds of 2/3 for Heads, corresponding to the
1108: probability of Heads being 2/5, which matches the conclusions of
1109: Beauty. While these conclusions are consistent, they appear doubtful
1110: because of their novelty, and their sensitivity to the number of
1111: companions.
1112:
1113: If the reference class used by Beauty and the Prince is expanded to
1114: include all wakenings by all humans, which seems natural, the
1115: conclusions of SSA$-$SIA change again. If there are a large number,
1116: $N$, of wakenings by other people, and by Beauty or the Prince on
1117: other days, the probability that Beauty will assign to Heads upon
1118: wakening before Wednesday will be
1119: $(1/(N\!+\!3))\,/\,(1/(N\!+\!3)+2/(N\!+\!4)) \approx 1/3$. The
1120: probability the Prince assigns to Heads upon wakening will be
1121: $(2/(N\!+\!3))\,/\,(2/(N\!+\!3)+2/(N\!+\!4)) \approx 1/2$, which will
1122: change to $1/3$ (a shift of odds by a factor of two) when he sees that
1123: Beauty is also awake. These conclusions of Beauty and the Prince are
1124: consistent, and match the conclusions obtained using FNC or SSA+SIA.
1125:
1126: We therefore see that to obtain the answer 1/2, or any answer other
1127: than 1/3, SSA$-$SIA must be applied with a narrow reference class.
1128: Furthermore, the most natural narrow reference class --- instances of
1129: Beauty alone --- cannot be used if consistency with the conclusions of
1130: a companion is required. The arguments based on SSA$-$SIA for the
1131: answer 1/2 appear to not be viable. Any such arguments in favour of
1132: some answer other than 1/2 or 1/3 seem arbitrary, and also
1133: unmotivated, to the extent that the original intuition in favour of
1134: 1/2 --- that Beauty learns nothing when she wakens before Wednesday
1135: --- is violated by any other answer.
1136:
1137:
1138: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}The Sailor's Child problem}\vspace*{-5pt}
1139:
1140: The issue underlying the Sleeping Beauty problem can be further clarified
1141: by looking at what I will call the Sailor's Child problem. This
1142: problem does not involve memory loss. Without any such fantastic
1143: aspect, we can surely hope to obtain a clear answer.
1144:
1145: A Sailor sails regularly between two ports, in each of which he stays
1146: with a woman, both of whom wish to have a child by him. He is
1147: reluctant, but eventually decides that he will have one or two
1148: children, with the number decided by a coin toss --- one if Heads, two
1149: if Tails. Furthermore, he decides that if the coin lands Heads, he
1150: will have a child with the woman who lives in the city listed first in
1151: \textit{The Sailor's Guide to Ports}. (He considers this fair, since
1152: although he owns a copy of this book, he hasn't previously read it, and
1153: so has no prior knowledge of which city comes first.) Now, suppose
1154: that you are this Sailor's child, and that neither you nor your mother
1155: know whether he had a child with the other woman. You also do not
1156: have a copy of \textit{The Sailor's Guide to Ports}. You do, however,
1157: know that he decided these matters as described above. What should
1158: you consider to be the probability that you are his only child (ie,
1159: that the coin he tossed landed Heads)?
1160:
1161: The answer seems clear. Given your ignorance regarding \textit{The
1162: Sailor's Guide to Ports}, you should believe that if the coin landed
1163: Heads, your mother would have been selected to have a child with
1164: probability 1/2, whereas if the coin landed Tails, this probability
1165: would have been~1. This 2-to-1 ratio of probabilities for what is
1166: observed (that you were born) given Tails versus Heads leads to the
1167: probability of Heads being 1/3. The probability of your having a
1168: half-sibling is therefore 2/3. If you have any doubts about this, due
1169: to some idea that you should consider that you might have been the
1170: other child, ask the opinion of your mother, who plays the role of
1171: ``companion'' in this tale. She should have no doubts about this
1172: reasoning.
1173:
1174: Suppose that you later obtain a copy of \textit{The Sailor's Guide to
1175: Ports}, and find that the city you were born in is listed before the
1176: other port city. With this additional information, your birth becomes
1177: certain, regardless of the result of the coin flip. You therefore
1178: have no information regarding the result of this flip, and should
1179: assign probability 1/2 to Tails, and hence also to the possibility
1180: that you have a half-sibling. This situation is analogous to Beauty
1181: being told that it is Monday sometime after wakening.
1182:
1183: Do the Sailor's Child and Sleeping Beauty problems differ in any
1184: important way? In the Sleeping Beauty problem, the instances of
1185: Beauty awakening on Monday and Tuesday can be visualized as
1186: ``children'' of the Beauty who existed on Sunday. That these
1187: ``children'' are much more closely related than are real children of
1188: the same father seems inessential, particularly since the only
1189: information transferred from Beauty-on-Sunday to Beauty-awakened-later
1190: is ``common knowledge'' about the setup, such as that the coin is
1191: fair. In this light, we can see that contrary to many treatments in
1192: the literature, the Sleeping Beauty problem is not really about
1193: updating of beliefs as new information is received --- a procedure
1194: that in any case seems dubious when actual or suspected memory loss is
1195: an issue.
1196:
1197: Perhaps the puzzlement concerning Sleeping Beauty is partly a
1198: consequence of an implicit assumption that if Beauty is woken on both
1199: Monday and Tuesday her subjective experiences will be identical ---
1200: that she will in essence be a single sentient entity existing at two
1201: moments in time. As mentioned above, this assumption is not justified
1202: by the standard description of the experiment. And indeed, it is not
1203: explicitly used in any of the arguments that I am aware of, but
1204: nevertheless seems to colour thinking about the problem. For example,
1205: Lewis (2001, p.~171) in describing the problem says, ``\ldots the
1206: memory erasure on Monday will make sure that her total evidence at the
1207: Tuesday awakening is exactly the same as at the Monday awakening'',
1208: and Elga (2000, p.~145) says, ``We may even suppose that you knew at
1209: the start of the experiment exactly what sensory experiences you would
1210: have upon being awakened on Monday'', which in the context of the
1211: problem would require also assuming that these experiences are
1212: identical to those on Tuesday (if one is woken then). Assuming
1213: that Beauty's subjective experiences on Monday and Tuesday are
1214: identical converts the thought experiment from one with an only mildly
1215: fantastic element (perfect memory erasure) to one which is arguably
1216: impossible in principle. It is perhaps not surprising that confusion
1217: can then ensue. In the Sailor's Child problem, however, no one would
1218: assume that if the Sailor has two children their lives will be
1219: indistinguishable; indeed, it is obvious that their lives will differ
1220: substantially (different mothers, different cities, etc.). That we
1221: can imagine the Sleeping Beauty experiment happening with the
1222: experiences of Beauty on Monday and on Tuesday differing only in much
1223: less dramatic ways does not change the correct answer; it only makes
1224: it harder to see.
1225:
1226:
1227: \section{\hspace*{-7pt}The Doomsday Argument}\label{sec-da}\vspace*{-10pt}
1228:
1229: Some versions of the Doomsday Argument, such as that of Gott (1993),
1230: depend in essence on an unsupported intuition --- if humanity will
1231: expand into the galaxy, with hundreds of trillions of humans being
1232: born, isn't it rather surprising that you are among the first hundred
1233: billion humans? I will deal only with the version due to Leslie
1234: (1996), which can be put in formal terms if SSA is assumed, as
1235: discussed by Bostrom (2002).
1236:
1237:
1238: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}Formalizing the Doomsday Argument}\vspace*{-5pt}
1239:
1240: Suppose you know that you are the $r$'th human to be born (knowing $r$
1241: approximately is good enough, but would complicate the notation). Let $N$
1242: be the (unknown) total number of humans who will ever be born. If you
1243: assume SSA with the reference class being all humans, the probability
1244: of your observation that your birth rank, $R$, is $r$, given that
1245: the total number of humans is $n$, can be written as
1246: \beq
1247: P(R=r\,|\,N=n) & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{cl} 1/n & \mbox{if $n \ge r$}\\[3pt]
1248: 0 & \mbox{if $n < r$}
1249: \end{array}\right.
1250: \eeq
1251: This is a consequence of SSA, since you might equally have been any of
1252: the $n$ humans to ever exist. Suppose that $P(N=n)$ gives your prior
1253: belief that a total of $n$ humans will ever be born, based on
1254: information such as your judgement of the probability that a large
1255: asteroid will collide earth, and of the probability that a species that
1256: has evolved by natural selection to be competitive will destroy itself
1257: once its members acquire the technological means to do so. Applying
1258: Bayes' Rule, you can obtain the posterior distribution for $N$, which
1259: on these assumptions
1260: reflects what your beliefs about $N$ should be after accounting for both
1261: your prior beliefs and your observation of $r$:
1262: \beq
1263: P(N=n\,|\,R=r) & = & {\textstyle P(N=n)\,P(R=r\,|\,N=n) \over \textstyle
1264: \sum_{n'=1}^{\infty^{\rule{0pt}{2pt}}}P(N=n')\,P(R=r\,|\,N=n')}
1265: \\[10pt]
1266: & = &
1267: \left\{ \begin{array}{cl} {\textstyle P(N=n)/n \over \textstyle
1268: \sum_{n'=r}^{\infty^{\rule{0pt}{2pt}}}P(N=n')/n'}
1269: & \mbox{if $n \ge r$} \\[12pt]
1270: 0 & \mbox{if $n < r$}
1271: \end{array}\right.\label{eq-doom}
1272: \eeq
1273: Compare this with the posterior distribution given the
1274: information that $N$ is at least $r$ --- which is implied by your
1275: observation that \textit{you} are the $r$'th human, but does not
1276: contain any ``indexical'' information regarding yourself:
1277: \beq
1278: P(N=n\,|\,N \ge r) & = &
1279: \left\{ \begin{array}{cl} {\textstyle P(N=n) \over \textstyle
1280: \sum_{n'=r}^{\infty^{\rule{0pt}{2pt}}}P(N=n')}
1281: & \mbox{if $n \ge r$} \\[12pt]
1282: 0 & \mbox{if $n < r$}
1283: \end{array}\right.\label{eq-nodoom}
1284: \eeq
1285:
1286: The difference between the posterior distributions for $N$ given by
1287: (\ref{eq-doom}) and (\ref{eq-nodoom}) can be substantial. Suppose,
1288: for instance, that you believe that we will either destroy ourselves
1289: soon, or if we avoid this fate, we (or our descendants) will go on to
1290: colonize the galaxy. This belief would lead to a prior for $N$ that (when
1291: idealized a bit) can be expressed as something like the following:
1292: \beq
1293: P(N=n) & = & \left\{\begin{array}{cl}
1294: 1/2 & \mbox{if $n=10^{11}$} \\[3pt]
1295: 1/2 & \mbox{if $n=10^{14}$} \\[3pt]
1296: 0 & \mbox{otherwise}
1297: \end{array}\right.
1298: \eeq
1299: If you observe that your birth rank is $r=6\times10^{10}$,
1300: conditioning on $N \ge r$ as in (\ref{eq-nodoom}) produces a posterior
1301: distribution that is the same as the prior. In contrast, conditioning
1302: on $R=r$ as in (\ref{eq-doom}) produces a posterior distribution in
1303: which the probability that humanity will colonize the galaxy is
1304: reduced from $1/2$ in the prior to $(1/2)/10^{14}\ /\ ((1/2)/10^{11}
1305: +(1/2)/10^{14})\ =\ 0.000999001$ in the posterior (or put another way,
1306: the odds in favour of colonizing the galaxy change from 1 to 1/1000).
1307: Much greater shifts in odds are possible if galactic colonization
1308: is assumed to be more extensive (eg, of $10^{10}$ stars, each with population
1309: $10^{10}$). A large ``Doomsday effect'' occurs even if the non-doom scenario
1310: involves only full utilization of our solar system.
1311:
1312:
1313: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}Why the Doomsday Argument must be wrong}\vspace*{-5pt}
1314:
1315: Although Leslie (1996) considers this shift in probabilities towards
1316: doom to be correct, and Bostrom (2002) does not consider the argument
1317: for it to be definitely refuted, there are several reasons for
1318: rejecting the Doomsday Argument that I regard as convincing, even
1319: without a detailed understanding of why it is wrong.
1320:
1321: The biggest problem with the Doomsday Argument is that its conclusion
1322: depends critically on the choice of reference class. Is it all
1323: members of the species \textit{Homo sapiens}? If so, exactly how is
1324: this species defined? Or should earlier extinct species of the genus
1325: \textit{Homo} be included? Do the other Great Apes (gorillas,
1326: chimpanzees, and orangutans) count? Would they count if future
1327: experiments showed their cognitive abilities were greater than is at
1328: present believed --- so that predictions regarding our prospects of
1329: colonizing the galaxy depend not just on the latest research into
1330: possible mechanisms of interstellar travel, but also on the latest
1331: research into whether apes can learn language?
1332:
1333: Such changes in the reference class could easily change the
1334: probabilities resulting from the Doomsday Argument by a factor of ten.
1335: The probabilities also change if your belief regarding your birth rank
1336: changes. Suppose we discover that the population of China from 15000
1337: to 5000 years ago was much larger than previously supposed, so that we
1338: estimate an extra $10^{11}$ people lived there in the past. If you
1339: previously estimated your birth rank as $6\times10^{10}$, you would
1340: now estimate it as $1.6\times10^{11}$. If your previous prior on $N$
1341: was $P(N=10^{11})=P(N=10^{14})=1/2$, this would likely now change to
1342: $P(N=2\times10^{11})=P(N=10^{14})=1/2$. The result would be factor of
1343: two improvement in the odds in favour of colonizing the galaxy (from
1344: 1/1000 to 1/500). But is it reasonable that the latest results from
1345: Chinese archeology should affect your beliefs in this way?
1346:
1347: Looking into the future, how much can our descendants differ from
1348: ourselves and still count as belonging to the reference class?
1349: Depending on the answer, the Doomsday Argument argument might not
1350: reduce the chances of our descendants colonizing the galaxy after all,
1351: if we think they would do so only after they start implanting
1352: computers in their brains, which might disqualify them from membership
1353: in the chosen reference class. It seems ridiculous that such an
1354: ethical judgement of what counts as ``human'' would affect our beliefs
1355: concerning the factual matter of whether or not our descendants will
1356: colonize the galaxy.
1357:
1358: The Doomsday Argument falls apart completely if one sees no reason why
1359: SSA should be applied to individual intelligent observers (or to
1360: briefer ``observer moments''). Considering that the Doomsday Argument
1361: has been discussed quite extensively, isn't the relevant unit not an
1362: individual, but rather an intellectual community? Due to modern
1363: communications technology, there is currently only one intellectual
1364: community in the world, but in the past there were many. There will
1365: again be many communities if civilization collapses (without humans
1366: going extinct). A civilization capable of colonizing the galaxy would
1367: probably maintain communications, however. The Doomsday Argument then
1368: leads to the conclusion that we are more likely to colonize the galaxy
1369: than one might have otherwise supposed. Clearly, an advocate of the
1370: Doomsday Argument needs to exclude this reference class, but it's not
1371: apparent how this could be justified.
1372:
1373: Another reason to doubt the validity of the Doomsday Argument is that
1374: the same reasoning in slightly different contexts leads to conclusions
1375: that also seem counterintuitive. Consider the reverse Doomsday
1376: Argument, in which you know your death rank, but are uncertain about
1377: your birth rank. For instance, you may have detected an asteroid on
1378: collision course with earth, one sufficiently large that it will
1379: certainly kill all humans. You then know that you will be among the
1380: last $7\times10^9$ humans to die. If you accept the logic of the
1381: Doomsday Argument, this will affect your beliefs about how many humans
1382: have ever lived. The effect will be even greater if you know that the
1383: point of impact will be on the opposite side of the earth from South
1384: Georgia Island, and you happen at present to be the only person on
1385: that remote island. You will then have good reason to believe that
1386: you will be the very last human to die, as the shock wave will reach
1387: you last. According to the Doomsday logic, you should then begin to
1388: seriously entertain various strange notions, such as that the
1389: statistics you'd previously believed regarding world population were
1390: actually faked, and that accepted historical and archeological
1391: accounts of the past are incorrect.
1392:
1393: Moreover, there is no reason to consider only temporal ranks. Suppose
1394: you live in a small village of about 100 people high in the Himalayas.
1395: You meet occasional visitors from elsewhere, from whom you gather that
1396: some people live at lower altitudes. They also inform you that your
1397: village is the highest permanent habitation in the world. Due to
1398: language difficulties, however, you have obtained no clear idea of the
1399: total world population, and think on the basis of these reports that
1400: it might equally well be a few million or a few billion. If you
1401: accept the logic of the Doomsday argument, you should then downgrade
1402: the odds of the world population being a few billion by a factor of a
1403: thousand, compared to the possibility that the population is a few
1404: million, on the basis that a world population of a few billion would
1405: produce a probability (based on SSA) of your ``altitude rank'' being
1406: around 100 (as it is) that is a thousand times smaller than that
1407: produced if the world population is a few million.
1408:
1409:
1410: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}More general Doomsday-like
1411: arguments}\label{sec-gendoom}\vspace*{-5pt}
1412:
1413: The only real role of birth or other rank in the Doomsday Argument is
1414: to provide a definition of a set $S$ of observers in the reference
1415: class whose size is known (at least approximately), and which you know
1416: you are a member of. If you know that your birth rank is $r$, then
1417: you know that you are a member of the set of of all observers with
1418: birth rank no larger than $r$, a set whose size you know to be $r$.
1419: When you condition on your membership in a set $S$ whose size you known
1420: to be $r$, and apply SSA, your beliefs about the number, $N$, of
1421: observers in the reference class are modified from your prior, given
1422: by $P(N=n)$.
1423: Specifically, since by SSA, $P(\mbox{you are in $S$}\,|\,N=n)\ =\ r/n$,
1424: you should conclude that
1425: \beq
1426: P(N=n\,|\,\mbox{you are in $S$}) & = &
1427: {\textstyle P(N=n)\,P(\mbox{you are in $S$}\,|\,N=n) \over \textstyle
1428: \sum_{n'=1}^{\infty^{\rule{0pt}{2pt}}}
1429: P(N=n')\,P(\,\mbox{you are in $S$}\,|\,N=n')} \\[10pt]
1430: & = &
1431: \left\{ \begin{array}{cl} {\textstyle P(N=n)/n \over \textstyle
1432: \sum_{n'=r}^{\infty^{\rule{0pt}{2pt}}}P(N=n')/n'}
1433: & \mbox{if $n \ge r$} \\[12pt]
1434: 0 & \mbox{if $n < r$}
1435: \end{array}\right.
1436: \eeq
1437: This parallels the Doomsday Argument of equation~(\ref{eq-doom}).
1438:
1439: This generalization threatens to produce further counter-intuitive
1440: results. Perhaps advocates of the Doomsday Argument could find some
1441: rationale for disallowing sets $S$ that are defined with too close a
1442: reference to you (though doing so without also excluding the set of
1443: people with birth rank no greater than yours might be a challenge).
1444: If so, you could not conclude on this basis that humanity will soon go
1445: extinct (and may never been very numerous) because your native
1446: language, of which you are the last living speaker, is, has been, and
1447: will be the native language of only a small number of people. Many
1448: Doomsday-like conclusions using sets that lack such an obvious
1449: connection to the person making the inference still seem possible,
1450: however. Suppose, for instance, that I have little idea of my birth
1451: rank (lacking any knowledge of archeology), but that I do know that I
1452: am among the roughly $10^9$ humans born between the invention of
1453: nuclear weapons and the first visit by humans to the moon. I can
1454: apply Doomsday-like logic (with reference class of all humans) to draw
1455: a pessimistic conclusion regarding the total number, $N$, of humans
1456: who ever exist. The argument doesn't tell me whether the humans who
1457: do exist were born before or after I was, but this just increases
1458: pessimism with regard to the future.
1459:
1460: As another example, suppose that you were convinced that only our
1461: solar system contains planets and that some sort of catastrophe is
1462: bound to wipe out humanity fairly soon. In particular, you think
1463: there will be no more than $10^{12}$ humans. However, you consider it
1464: plausible that intelligent beings may exist on Jupiter. Moreover, you
1465: believe that if such beings do exist, they are very numerous compared
1466: to humans --- Jupiter is much larger than earth, supporting a very
1467: large population at any given time, and reducing the chances that a
1468: catastrophe could wipe out the whole population. Suppose you think
1469: that $10^{16}$ Jupiter beings will exist if any such beings exist. If
1470: you now apply SSA with the reference class of all intelligent
1471: observers, and consider the set $S$ of human observers, you will
1472: multiply your prior odds in favour of the existence of Jupiter-beings
1473: by the factor $10^{12}/10^{16} = 1/10000$, since if Jupiter-beings
1474: exist, the probability that you would be human rather a Jupiter-being
1475: is only $1/10000$. Many of the reasons for disbelieving the ordinary
1476: Doomsday Argument apply to arguments of this sort as well. For
1477: example, how intelligent do the Jupiter-beings have to be to count as
1478: members of the reference class?
1479:
1480: To me, these arguments seem just as ``presumptuous'' as the
1481: Presumptuous Philosopher's argument discussed below in
1482: Section~\ref{sec-pp}. Moreover, being based on SSA$-$SIA, these
1483: Doomsday-like arguments are sensitive to choice of reference class,
1484: unlike arguments based on FNC or SSA+SIA (as discussed in
1485: Sections~\ref{sec-idx} and~\ref{sec-fnc}). However, arguments of this
1486: type are essential if SSA$-$SIA is to avoid conflict with conclusions
1487: by companions, as discussed generally in Section~\ref{sec-companions},
1488: and in connection with the Presumptuous Philosopher problem in
1489: Section~\ref{sec-density}.
1490:
1491:
1492: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}The Doomsday Argument with non-human intelligent
1493: species}\label{sec-da-et}\vspace*{-5pt}
1494:
1495: Inclusion of intelligent species other than humans in the reference
1496: class changes the focus of the the Doomsday argument from specifically
1497: human hazards to hazards affecting intelligent species in general.
1498: This is discussed, for example, by Knobe, Olum, and Vilenkin (2006).
1499:
1500: Suppose you are sure that many intelligent species exist, have
1501: existed, or will exist. Direct application of the Doomsday Argument
1502: with this reference class is then not possible, assuming you have
1503: little idea of your birth rank among all intelligent observers. If
1504: you know the distribution of the total number of individuals in a
1505: species who ever exist, there will be no Doomsday effect ---
1506: application of SSA should lead you to consider it more likely
1507: \textit{a~priori} that your species is one of the more numerous ones,
1508: which cancels the Doomsday effect from knowing that your birth rank
1509: within your species is low. However, a Doomsday effect remains if you
1510: are uncertain about the typical lifetime of intelligent species. For
1511: instance, you might be uncertain whether species that develop advanced
1512: technology are likely to use it to destroy themselves (either by
1513: internal conflict, or by destruction of their environment), in which
1514: case most intelligent species will be short lived, or whether instead
1515: such advanced technology will typically enhance a species' prospects,
1516: in which case most intelligent species will be long lived, with
1517: numerous individuals. Application of SSA together with knowledge that
1518: your birth rank within your species is low then produces a shift of
1519: probability toward the hypothesis that most intelligent species are
1520: short lived (most likely including yours, absent any evidence that it
1521: is an exception).
1522:
1523:
1524: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}Defusing the Doomsday Argument with
1525: SIA or FNC}\vspace*{-5pt}
1526:
1527: Assuming SIA as well as SSA defuses the Doomsday Argument. Your
1528: original prior for $N$, given by probabilities $P(N=n)$, is adjusted
1529: by SIA so that the prior probability that $N=n$ becomes
1530: $n\,P(N=n)\ /\ \sum_{n'=1}^{\infty} n'\,P(N=n')$. Substituting this
1531: expression for occurrences of the form $P(N=n)$ in
1532: equation~(\ref{eq-doom}) gives the ``no doom'' probabilities of
1533: equation~(\ref{eq-nodoom}).
1534:
1535: As one would expect from the discussion in Section~\ref{sec-fnc},
1536: the same result is obtained if one uses FNC, with the argument being
1537: even more direct. You update your prior for $N$, with probabilities
1538: $P(N=n)$, by conditioning on the existence of a person with your full
1539: set of memories, which includes knowledge of your birth rank, $r$.
1540: (Your scientific knowledge regarding what $N$ might be will have been
1541: incorporated into the prior, however, and needn't be conditioned on at
1542: this point.) However, the (presumably very small) probability that a
1543: person exists with birth rank $r$ and with all your other memories is
1544: independent of $N$, apart from the requirement that $N$ be at least
1545: $r$. The posterior distribution of $N$ is therefore just the prior
1546: for $N$ renormalized to sum to one over the range from $r$ up --- ie,
1547: the same as in equation~(\ref{eq-nodoom}).
1548:
1549: Similar arguments refute the form of the Doomsday Argument where there
1550: are many intelligent species. Assuming SIA makes it more likely that
1551: intelligent species are usually long-lived, cancelling the doomsday
1552: effect. If you apply FNC, the probability that someone exists with
1553: all your memories, including your knowledge that your birth rank
1554: within your species is $r$, depends only on how many intelligent
1555: species have at least $r$ individuals, not on how long-lived these
1556: species are beyond that.
1557:
1558: The apparent simplicity of these refutations of the Doomsday
1559: Argument is deceptive, however. These refutations will have no force
1560: if assuming FNC (or SIA, if you prefer) leads to insurmountable problems
1561: in other contexts. This issue is explored in the next two sections.
1562:
1563:
1564: \section{\hspace*{-7pt}Freak Observers}\label{sec-fo}\vspace*{-10pt}
1565:
1566: Bostrom (2002) argues for SSA on the grounds that without it drawing
1567: conclusions from empirical evidence is impossible, due to the
1568: existence of ``freak observers''. The problem is that in a large
1569: universe, \textit{someone} will have made every possible observation,
1570: regardless of what the true state of the universe is. So knowing that
1571: a particular observation has been made provides no evidence at all
1572: concerning reality. However, if you accept SSA, and know that
1573: \textit{you} made a particular observation, you can draw useful
1574: conclusions, as long as \textit{most} observations made by observers
1575: in your reference class correspond (at least approximately) to
1576: reality. For this to work, your reference class needn't be very large
1577: --- it makes no difference whether you use all human-like beings or
1578: all intelligent observers, for instance --- but it must be at least a
1579: bit larger than the set of observers with exactly your memories, since
1580: that narrow reference class might consist only of observers who have
1581: made the same misleading observation.
1582:
1583: In arguing for the existence of freak observers, Bostrom mentions
1584: possibilities such as brains in all possible states being emitted from
1585: black holes as Hawking radiation, or condensing by chance from clouds
1586: of gas. However, it is perhaps too easy to say that in an infinite
1587: universe such events must happen. The size of the universe that is
1588: needed to make such events likely is quite unimaginably huge, even in
1589: comparison with the vastness of the observable universe that we have
1590: by now become accustomed to. It is much easier to imagine misleading
1591: observations arising by more normal mechanisms. Equipment failures,
1592: unusual amounts of noise, incompetence, and fraud are all possible
1593: reasons why an apparently definitive scientific observation might
1594: actually be wrong. The probability of an observation being wrong will
1595: almost always be at least one in a billion. Since there are quite
1596: likely more than a billion planets in the observable universe that are
1597: inhabited by intelligent beings (this is much less than one per
1598: galaxy), it is likely that numerous highly misleading observations
1599: have been made.
1600:
1601: I will argue that you can draw conclusions from observation despite
1602: the existence of such misleading observations without needing SSA ---
1603: use of FNC being sufficient --- as long as the universe is not so
1604: large that you would expect there to be other observers with exactly
1605: the same memories as you. According to FNC, you should condition not
1606: just on what you know to be the result of a scientific observation,
1607: but also on all your other memories. The probability that an observer
1608: exists with all your memories, including your memory of the
1609: observation, will be much greater if the observation is correct than
1610: if it is incorrect, unless the universe is so large that it contains
1611: many observers whose memories match yours in all respects other than
1612: the result of this observation. You will therefore be justified in
1613: concluding that your observation likely corresponds to reality.
1614:
1615: How big would the universe have to be for the assumption that there
1616: are no other observers whose memories match yours to be false? Though
1617: I have not performed any detailed calculations, it seems to me that
1618: the most likely way for another observer with your memories to arise
1619: is by ordinary biological processes on a planet somewhere --- not by
1620: bizarre mechanisms such as Hawking radiation. To get a lower limit on
1621: the required size of the universe, let us suppose that life-bearing
1622: planets are common, and that biology on them is always much like it is
1623: on earth. Producing a duplicate of you would then require that a
1624: species evolve that is nearly identical to \textit{Homo sapiens}, and
1625: that an individual in this species then acquire the same memories as
1626: you. The human genome contains about $3\times10^9$ base pairs, for
1627: each of which there are four possible nucleotides. Even supposing
1628: that only 1\% of these base pairs might differ in a similar species
1629: (others being functionally constrained), and that only 1\% of these
1630: differences would have a noticeable effect, we are left with
1631: $4^{3\times10^5} \approx 10^{180000}$ possible and distinguishable
1632: human-like individuals. Humans have approximately $10^{11}$ neurons.
1633: Even supposing that each neuron and its connections (which typically
1634: number in the thousands) encodes only one bit of useful information,
1635: there will be $2^{10^{11}} \approx 10^{30000000000}$ possible sets of
1636: memories. This number dominates the number of possible genomes. For
1637: comparison, there are roughly $10^{11}$ galaxies in the observable
1638: universe, each containing roughly $10^{11}$ stars. Even if all these
1639: stars have life-bearing planets, the number of such planets in the
1640: observable universe is only $10^{22}$. If each contained $10^{10}$
1641: observers, replaced over $10^{10}$ generations, the total number of observers
1642: would be $10^{42}$. The universe would therefore need to be a factor of around
1643: $10^{30000000000}/10^{42} = 10^{29999999958}$ times larger than
1644: the portion of it that we can observe in order for there to be a good
1645: chance that another observer exists with the same memories as you.
1646:
1647: Large as it is, $10^{29999999958}$ is of course as nothing compared to
1648: infinity, which some may believe describes the actual extent of the
1649: universe (eg, Knobe, Olum, and Vilenkin 2006). However, before
1650: insisting that the possibility of a universe this large or infinite
1651: should constrain our reasoning processes, we should ask what else
1652: would change if we took this possibility seriously. Common notions of
1653: decisions and ethics would seem to be in serious trouble --- if
1654: everything is bound to happen someplace, why strive for a good outcome
1655: here? As I argued in Section~\ref{sec-fant}, making fantastic
1656: assumptions of this sort carries the danger that subsequent reasoning
1657: may utilize premises that are in fact incompatible with the
1658: assumption.
1659:
1660: Accordingly, it seems safer to at least initially consider problems of
1661: anthropic reasoning on the assumption of a finite (and not
1662: ridiculously large) universe. However, I do not dismiss the
1663: possibility that the universe is truly infinite in spatial extent, or
1664: that an infinity of parallel universes exist, due perhaps to the Many
1665: Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics being correct. But if so,
1666: and if the consequences are as they might superficially seem, then the
1667: arguments concerning the puzzles of anthropic reasoning that I address
1668: here need to go beyond what has appeared in the literature so far.
1669: Great care would need to be taken to ensure that assumptions based on
1670: ideas such as uniqueness of individuals do not enter in subtle ways.
1671: I will consider infinite universes in Section~\ref{sec-cosmo}, but for
1672: the moment, I confine myself to arguments that are compatible with a
1673: more common sense view of the universe.
1674:
1675:
1676: \section{\hspace*{-7pt}Presumptuous Philosophers}\label{sec-pp}\vspace*{-10pt}
1677:
1678: The Presumptuous Philosopher problem has been interpreted (eg, by
1679: Bostrom (2002)) as showing that SIA should not be accepted, because it
1680: leads to an unreasonable preference for cosmological theories that
1681: imply that the number of observers in the universe is large. If
1682: theory $A$ implies that the number of observers (in the chosen
1683: reference class) is a trillion times larger than that implied by
1684: theory $B$, SIA says that you should shift your relative prior beliefs
1685: in theories $A$ and $B$ by a factor of a trillion. If you judge the
1686: two theories equally likely on other grounds (and there are no other
1687: plausible theories), application of SIA should leave you virtually
1688: certain that theory $A$ is true --- so certain that you would
1689: rationally ignore almost any future evidence to the contrary. Such
1690: dogmatism seems intuitively unacceptable.
1691:
1692: FNC also seems vulnerable to the Presumptuous Philosopher problem. The
1693: probability of an observer with exactly your memories existing
1694: somewhere in the universe will be greater if the number of observers
1695: who ``might have'' your memories is larger. If your memories are
1696: detailed enough to make the probability of their occurring small even
1697: in the largest universe considered, the probability that an observer
1698: with your memories exists will be directly proportional to the number
1699: of observers, producing the same shift as for SIA.
1700:
1701: As an extreme, a theory that says the universe is infinite would
1702: appear to be infinitely favoured by SIA. FNC would also favour such a
1703: theory over one in which the universe is only a few billion light
1704: years in extent, though with FNC the preference for an infinite
1705: universe would only be very large, not infinite (since once the
1706: universe is large enough that it is nearly certain that at least one
1707: observer with your memories will exist somewhere, sometime, further
1708: increases in the size of the universe are neither favoured or
1709: disfavoured). Here, however, I will discuss the Presumptuous
1710: Philosopher problem under the assumption that the universe is finite,
1711: and though it may be very large, it is not so large that exact
1712: duplicates of observers are likely to occur. I consider first the
1713: consequences of SSA$-$SIA versus those of SSA+SIA for theories that
1714: differ in the density of observers, but not in the size of the
1715: universe. I then consider what FNC says in this situation. Finally,
1716: I discuss the more difficult problem of assessing theories that
1717: predict universes of different sizes.
1718:
1719:
1720: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}Theories differing in the density of observers
1721: --- SSA$-$SIA vs.\ SSA+SIA}\label{sec-density}\vspace*{-5pt}
1722:
1723: Implicit in the simple statement of the Presumptuous Philosopher
1724: problem is the assumption that the details of why theory $A$ predicts
1725: many more observers than theory $B$ do not matter. In particular,
1726: Bostrom and \'{C}irkovi\'{c} (2003) present two versions of the
1727: Presumptuous Philosopher problem, one in which theories $A$ and $B$
1728: differ with respect to the size of the universe, the other in which
1729: they differ with respect to the density of observers, and consider
1730: (without discussing the matter) that the same conclusion (that SIA
1731: gives wrong results) should be reached in both situations. On the
1732: contrary, I will argue here that if theories $A$ and $B$ agree on the
1733: size of the universe (which both also predict is homogeneous), but
1734: differ in that theory $A$ predicts a higher density of observers, then
1735: the preference given by SIA to theory $A$ may be well justified.
1736:
1737: Throughout this section and the next, I will assume that intelligent
1738: observers in different star systems cannot affect each other --- not
1739: through travel, communication, or detection, nor though any
1740: non-deliberate means --- since any contact with observers in other star
1741: systems would provide direct evidence of the density of observers,
1742: invalidating the discussion. It is important to keep in mind that
1743: this assumption is false. Section~\ref{sec-int} discusses what we may
1744: conclude about the density of observers given what we actually know.
1745: The discussion below is meant to clarify the philosophical issues
1746: involved in a simple empirical context, which does not correspond to
1747: our actual state of knowledge.
1748:
1749: Leslie (1996) and Olum (2002) discuss a historical instance of
1750: theories differing with regard to the density of observers, in which
1751: Olum argues in favour of the predictions of SIA, whereas Leslie, and
1752: also Bostrom and \'{C}irkovi\'{c} (2003), argue against SIA.
1753: Marochnik (1983) advanced a theory that earth-like planets can form
1754: only around stars whose distance from the galactic centre leads them
1755: to revolve around the galactic centre at a speed that nearly maintains
1756: their position relative to the density waves defining the galaxy's
1757: spiral arms. This theory limits the possible locations of earth-like
1758: planets to a small region, occupying a fraction $f$ of the galaxy,
1759: with $f$ perhaps being in the range 0.01 to 0.1. Given various other
1760: assumptions (eg, that life formed in this region does not colonize the
1761: rest of the galaxy), Marochnik's theory would imply that there are a
1762: fraction $f$ fewer intelligent observers in the universe than would be
1763: expected under an alternative ``planets everywhere'' theory, in which
1764: there is no such restriction on where an earth-like planet can form.
1765:
1766: As Olum notes, Marochnik's theory is therefore disfavoured by SIA ---
1767: ie, if you accept SIA, you should reduce the probability you assign to
1768: this theory below the probability you would have assigned to it based
1769: on ordinary considerations. In particular, if you thought the two
1770: theories equally likely excluding consideration of SIA, and no other
1771: theories are plausible, you would consider Marochnik's theory to have
1772: probability $f/(1\!+\!f)$ after applying SIA (equivalently, the odds
1773: in favour of Marochnik's theory shift from $1$ to $f$). In contrast,
1774: to someone who accepts SSA but not SIA, and who does not know the
1775: distance of any earth-like planet from the galactic centre,
1776: Marochnik's theory is neither favoured nor disfavoured compared to the
1777: ``planets everywhere'' theory, provided that the regions where life is
1778: possible according to Marochnik's theory are large enough that
1779: intelligent observers are nearly certain to have arisen in some such
1780: region at least once in the history of the universe. ($f$ would need
1781: to be very small, less than about $10^{-20}$, for this condition to be
1782: false.)
1783:
1784: Suppose now that we are able to measure the distance of the sun from
1785: the galactic centre, and we find that this distance is such that it
1786: leads to the sun nearly maintaining its position with respect to the
1787: galaxy's spiral arms, as predicted by Marochnik's theory. In fact,
1788: according to Marochnik's (1983) paper (though perhaps not more recent
1789: measurements), our sun does appear to be at the required distance. We
1790: could easily imagine this was not known until later, however. Should
1791: such an observation be taken as a confirmation of Marochnik's theory?
1792:
1793: According to all views of the matter, this observation does indeed
1794: increase the probability that Marochnik's theory is correct. In
1795: particular, the odds in favour of Marochnik's theory are multiplied by
1796: the ratio of the probabilities of this observation under Marochnik's
1797: theory and the ``planets everywhere'' theory, which is $1/f$ (since
1798: the probability of observing this is $1$ for Marochnik's theory and
1799: $f$ for the ``planets everywhere'' theory). However, if SIA is
1800: accepted, this increase in the probability of Marochnik's theory
1801: merely cancels the previous lowering of the theory's probability due
1802: to its prediction that there are relatively few intelligent observers.
1803: (Equivalently, the odds in favour of Marochnik's theory shift from $f$
1804: to $f\times(1/f)=1$.) The result is that Marochnik's theory, after
1805: such a observation is made, has the same probability as it would have
1806: had without any such observation, and without adjusting its prior
1807: probability by applying SIA. In contrast, someone who accepts SSA but
1808: not SIA, and who on the basis of prior information regards Marochnik's
1809: theory and the`` planets everywhere'' theory as equally likely, would
1810: take the observation that our sun is in the small region of the galaxy
1811: where Marochnik's theory predicts stars with earth-like planets are
1812: possible as reason to increase the probability of Marochnik's theory
1813: to $1/(1\!+\!f)$ (ie, the odds in favour of Marochnik's theory would
1814: be $1/f$). This preference comes about because under SSA (with a
1815: reference class of all intelligent observers) it is unlikely that we
1816: would be in this special place in the galaxy if intelligent observers
1817: are found throughout the galaxy, but it is certain that we will be in
1818: this special place if it is the only place where intelligent observers
1819: can exist.
1820:
1821: The device of imagining ``companion'' observers can be used to shed
1822: light on which of these views is correct. Suppose that in addition to
1823: any intelligent observers who may originate on planets, intelligent
1824: observers taking the form of complex patterns of plasma and magnetic
1825: fields exist in the atmospheres of all stars. Initially, let us
1826: assume that each star harbours only around a dozen such star-beings
1827: (and we know this). Such star-beings therefore make up a negligible
1828: fraction of the reference class of all intelligent observers, even if
1829: a planet holding billions of intelligent beings is found around only
1830: one star in a million. The star-beings living in our sun's atmosphere
1831: are quite willing to engage in astrophysical discussions, once we
1832: realize they are there. After these discussions they have the same
1833: observational data as we do. Will their conclusions about Marochnik's
1834: theory agree with ours? The answer depends on the principles by which
1835: inference is done, as discussed below, and summarized in the tables on
1836: the next page.
1837:
1838: \begin{figure}[p]
1839:
1840: \begin{center}\begin{tabular}{
1841: |@{\hspace*{4pt}}l@{\hspace{2pt}}||cc|cc||c@{\hspace*{5pt}}c|c@{\hspace*{5pt}}c|
1842: }
1843: \hline
1844: & \multicolumn{4}{c||}{}
1845: & \multicolumn{4}{c@{}|}{}
1846: \\[-8pt]
1847: STAR-BEINGS MUCH
1848: & \multicolumn{4}{c||}{Reference class only star-beings}
1849: & \multicolumn{4}{c@{}|}{Reference class both}
1850: \\
1851: LESS NUMEROUS
1852: & \multicolumn{4}{c||}{or only planet-beings}
1853: & \multicolumn{4}{c@{}|}{star-beings and planet-beings}
1854: \\[6pt]
1855: & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{SSA$-$SIA}
1856: & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{SSA+SIA}
1857: & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{SSA$-$SIA}
1858: & \multicolumn{2}{c@{}|}{SSA+SIA}
1859: \\[4pt]
1860: & planet & star
1861: & planet & star
1862: & planet & star
1863: & planet & star
1864: \\[-2pt]
1865: & beings & beings
1866: & beings & beings
1867: & beings & beings
1868: & beings & beings
1869: \\
1870: \hline &&&&&&&& \\[-12pt] \hline
1871: Prior based on ordinary & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
1872: information &&&&&&&& \\ \hline
1873: Prior after adjustment & & & $f$& 1 & & & $f$& $f$\\
1874: using SIA &&&&&&&& \\ \hline
1875: Prior after adjustment & 1 & 1 & $f$& 1 & 1 &$1/f$& $f$& 1 \\
1876: using SSA &&&&&&&& \\ \hline
1877: Posterior after existence & 1 & $f$& $f$& $f$& 1 & 1 & $f$& $f$\\
1878: of companions known &&&&&&&& \\ \hline
1879: Posterior after location &$1/f$& 1 & 1 & 1 &$1/f$&$1/f$& 1 & 1 \\
1880: of sun in galaxy known &&&&&&&& \\ \hline
1881: \end{tabular}
1882:
1883: \vspace*{23pt}
1884:
1885: \begin{tabular}{
1886: |@{\hspace*{4pt}}l@{\hspace{2pt}}||cc|cc||c@{\hspace*{5pt}}c|c@{\hspace*{5pt}}c|
1887: }
1888: \hline
1889: & \multicolumn{4}{c||}{}
1890: & \multicolumn{4}{c@{}|}{}
1891: \\[-8pt]
1892: STAR-BEINGS MUCH
1893: & \multicolumn{4}{c||}{Reference class only star-beings}
1894: & \multicolumn{4}{c@{}|}{Reference class both}
1895: \\
1896: MORE NUMEROUS
1897: & \multicolumn{4}{c||}{or only planet-beings}
1898: & \multicolumn{4}{c@{}|}{star-beings and planet-beings}
1899: \\[6pt]
1900: & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{SSA$-$SIA}
1901: & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{SSA+SIA}
1902: & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{SSA$-$SIA}
1903: & \multicolumn{2}{c@{}|}{SSA+SIA}
1904: \\[4pt]
1905: & planet & star
1906: & planet & star
1907: & planet & star
1908: & planet & star
1909: \\[-2pt]
1910: & beings & beings
1911: & beings & beings
1912: & beings & beings
1913: & beings & beings
1914: \\
1915: \hline &&&&&&&& \\[-12pt] \hline
1916: Prior based on ordinary & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
1917: information &&&&&&&& \\ \hline
1918: Prior after adjustment & & & $f$& 1 & & & 1 & 1 \\
1919: using SIA &&&&&&&& \\ \hline
1920: Prior after adjustment & 1 & 1 & $f$& 1 & $f$& 1 & $f$& 1 \\
1921: using SSA &&&&&&&& \\ \hline
1922: Posterior after existence & 1 & $f$& $f$& $f$& $f$& $f$& $f$& $f$\\
1923: of companions known &&&&&&&& \\ \hline
1924: Posterior after location &$1/f$& 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
1925: of sun in galaxy known &&&&&&&& \\ \hline
1926: \end{tabular}\end{center}
1927:
1928: \vspace*{19pt}
1929:
1930: %\caption[]
1931:
1932: Inferences by planet-beings and star-beings under various
1933: assumptions. The upper table is for the scenario in which star-beings
1934: are much less numerous than planet-beings, the lower table when
1935: star-beings are much more numerous than planet-beings. Entries in the
1936: tables are the odds, utilizing the information listed on the left for
1937: that row and the rows above, in favour of Marocknik's theory versus
1938: the ``planets everywhere'' theory, with $f$ being the fraction of stars in
1939: the location where Marochnik's theory says earth-like planets are
1940: possible.
1941:
1942: %\label{fig-table}
1943:
1944: \end{figure}
1945:
1946: Consider first what conclusions will be drawn if humans (or other
1947: planet-beings) use as their reference class for SSA or SIA only other
1948: planet-beings (not star beings), and similarly star-beings use as
1949: their reference reference class only other star-beings. Since the two
1950: theories under consideration make the same predictions regarding
1951: star-beings, SSA and SIA will then have no effect on inferences by
1952: star-beings, but may have an effect on inferences by planet-beings.
1953: (These conclusions are shown on the left side of the top table.)
1954:
1955: Suppose first that neither we nor the star-beings in our sun's
1956: atmosphere know the position of the sun in the galaxy. The
1957: star-beings will then take our existence on earth as evidence against
1958: Marochnik's theory, since according to that theory, earth-like planets
1959: occur only in a special region of the galaxy, and (like us) the
1960: star-beings have no reason to think that the sun is in this special
1961: region. If they thought Marochnik's theory and the ``planets
1962: everywhere'' theory were equally likely before knowing that humans
1963: exist, they will think Marochnik's theory has probability
1964: $f/(1\!+\!f)$ after (ie, the odds in favour of Marochnik's theory will
1965: be $f$).
1966:
1967: Suppose now that the distance of the sun from the galactic centre is
1968: measured, and found to be such that the sun nearly maintains its
1969: position with respect to the spiral arms. The star-beings will now no
1970: longer take our existence on earth as evidence against Marochnik's
1971: theory, since given that the sun is in this special place, it is not
1972: surprising that it has an earth-like planet. However, Marochnik's
1973: theory is not made any more probable than the ``planets everywhere''
1974: theory by this observation. As discussed above, after finding that
1975: humans exist, the star-beings' odds for Marochnik's theory being true
1976: would be $f$. The probabilities for the subsequent observation that
1977: the sun is in the special position required by Marochnik's theory are
1978: $1$ if Marochnik's theory is true, and $f$ if the ``planets
1979: everywhere'' theory is true. The odds for Marochnik's theory shift by
1980: the ratio of these probabilities, leaving the odds at $f\times(1/f)=1$.
1981:
1982: To see why it is reasonable that the star-beings would not favour
1983: Marochnik's theory in this situation, consider for comparison how you
1984: would evaluate a theory that a certain fish occurs only in acidic
1985: lakes, versus the contrary theory that it occurs in all lakes. The
1986: observation that this fish is present in a nearby acidic lake tells
1987: you nothing about which of these theories is true --- you need to look
1988: in a non-acidic lake to obtain any relevant data.\footnote{There may
1989: be a curious order dependence of intuitions here. If you first find
1990: that this lake is acidic, and then find that it contains this fish,
1991: you will certainly reason as above. But if you first discover that
1992: the lake contains this fish, and only later find that the lake is
1993: acidic, you might be tempted to take this observation as confirmation
1994: that the fish is found only in acidic lakes, particularly if acidic
1995: lakes are rare. The difference appears to derive from a heuristic for
1996: avoiding self-deception --- predicting that the lake is acidic after
1997: finding the fish in it is psychologically risky, in that you might be
1998: wrong. So if you actually make such a prediction, your \textit{prior}
1999: probability that the fish is found only in acidic lakes must really be
2000: high. In contrast, no such stark confrontation with reality occurs
2001: when you know the lake is acidic before looking for the fish (which is
2002: therefore likely to be found regardless of which theory is correct).
2003: It might then be easier to deceive yourself regarding your true prior
2004: beliefs. So, taking into account your own capacity for
2005: self-deception, your conclusion may depend on the order of
2006: observations. Here, however, I assume that we are not prone to
2007: self-deception of this sort.}
2008:
2009: The conclusions of the star-beings regarding Marochnik's theory are
2010: the same as we would reach by applying SIA. I will call these the
2011: ``non-anthropic'' conclusions, since they are also what one would
2012: obtain by ignoring both SSA and SIA, as some observer outside the
2013: universe would do (just as with the fish example above).
2014:
2015: Before considering this reasoning by companion star-beings as
2016: supporting the non-anthropic conclusions, however, we should consider
2017: that the star-beings might apply SSA and/or SIA with the reference
2018: class of all intelligent observers, including both us and them. (The
2019: \mbox{resulting} conclusions are shown on the right of the top table.)
2020: If the star-beings accept SIA, they will adjust their prior to
2021: disfavour Marochnik's theory, since it predicts many fewer intelligent
2022: observers, thereby reducing the odds in favour of Marochnik's theory
2023: to approximately $f$. (Recall here that the star-beings form a
2024: negligible fraction of all intelligent observers.) However, if they
2025: now apply SSA in conjunction with their observation that they are
2026: star-beings, this effect is undone, since the more planet-based
2027: intelligent observers there are, the smaller the odds that one is a
2028: star-being. (Recall that the number of star-beings is the same for
2029: both theories). The odds in favour of Marochnik's theory therefore
2030: shift by the factor $1/f$, to $f\times(1/f)=1$. Subsequent reasoning
2031: proceeds to the non-anthropic conclusions just as above --- the
2032: observation of humans on earth decreases the probability of
2033: Marochnik's theory (the odds in favour decline to $f$), and the
2034: subsequent measurement showing that the sun is in the special place
2035: where earth-like planets are possible restores this probability to
2036: its original value, but no higher (ie, at this point, Marochnik's
2037: theory is neither favoured nor disfavoured).
2038:
2039: On the other hand, if the star-beings accept SSA but not SIA, and use
2040: the reference class of all intelligent beings, their conclusions will
2041: match those of humans who also accept SSA but not SIA (with the same
2042: reference class). A doomsday-style effect occurs, of the sort
2043: discussed in Section~\ref{sec-gendoom}, in which the star-beings
2044: initially adjust the probability of Marochnik's theory upwards, since
2045: this theory makes it more likely that one is a star-being, like them,
2046: rather than a planet-being. Observation of humans on earth causes the
2047: probability of Marochnik's theory to go down again (since it says that
2048: earth-like planets are rare). Finding that the sun is in the special
2049: place where Marochnik's theory says earth-like planets are possible
2050: then raises the probability of Marochnik's theory back up again, to
2051: the point where it is favoured by the factor $1/f$ over the ``planets
2052: everywhere'' theory.
2053:
2054: This consideration of companion star-beings therefore does not
2055: definitively refute the methodology of accepting SSA but not SIA ---
2056: provided humans and star-beings both use SSA$-$SIA with the reference
2057: class of all intelligent beings, their conclusions are the same. This
2058: is expected from the (only slightly different) general discussion in
2059: Section~\ref{sec-gendoom}.
2060:
2061: However, this consideration of companions does undermine the claim
2062: that the Presumptuous Philosopher problem makes SIA implausible (at
2063: least on the basis of this scenario). To review, the claim is that
2064: although SIA defuses the counter-intuitive Doomsday Argument, it does
2065: so at the cost of producing an equally counter-intuitive Presumptuous
2066: Philosopher effect. Here, however, we see that the conclusion of the
2067: Presumptuous Philosopher in this scenario is implausible only if you
2068: accept arguments of the Doomsday type --- such as would lead the
2069: star-beings to favour Marochnik's theory prior to any observations
2070: solely on the basis that it makes it more probable that an observer
2071: will be a star-being like themselves. An advocate of SIA who rejects
2072: Doomsday-type arguments will therefore be untroubled by this instance
2073: of the Presumptuous Philosopher problem.
2074:
2075: We might alternatively suppose that, rather than each star having only
2076: a dozen star-beings, each star instead has trillions of them, so they
2077: are vastly more numerous than planet-based beings, under any theory.
2078: (Conclusions on this assumption are shown in the bottom table.) In
2079: this situation, anthropic reasoning has no effect on the conclusions
2080: of the star-beings, who will reach the non-anthropic conclusions
2081: regardless of whether they accept SSA and/or SIA, using any plausible
2082: reference class. SIA also has no effect for human observers in this
2083: situation, provided that they use the reference class of all
2084: intelligent observers (not all humans, or all planet-based observers).
2085: However, SSA has the effect, for humans, of decreasing the probability
2086: of Marochnik's theory, since under this theory, one is less likely to
2087: be a planet-based being than one is under the ``planets everywhere''
2088: theory. This decrease is undone once the sun is found to be in the
2089: special place where planets are possible under Marochnik's theory.
2090: The results match the non-anthropic conclusions of the star-beings,
2091: once they know of the existence of humans, so this scenario does not
2092: resolve any issues. However, if the humans used the reference class
2093: of all planet-based intelligent observers (excluding star-beings),
2094: their conclusions using SSA$-$SIA will not match those reached by the
2095: star-beings.
2096:
2097: Here again, SSA$-$SIA can produce conclusions consistent with those of
2098: companion observers provided a reference class including both is used.
2099: Notice, however, that the conclusions found using SSA$-$SIA in this
2100: scenario with numerous companions are different from those found when
2101: the companions were less numerous. Applying anthropic reasoning based
2102: on SSA$-$SIA leads to conclusions regarding planet-based observers
2103: that depend on how many non-planet-based observers exist, even though
2104: this information would appear to be irrelevant.
2105:
2106: In another scenario, we might have two theories, one of which says
2107: that intelligent observers are common, whereas the other says that
2108: they are randomly distributed at a low density (but high enough that
2109: it is likely that at least one intelligent species does exist). In
2110: contrast with Marochnik's theory, in this scenario there is no
2111: possibility of discovering that the sun is in a special life-bearing
2112: region. Using SSA$-$SIA, the prior probabilities for the two theories
2113: depend only on normal considerations of plausibility, and our
2114: observation that we exist does not change these probabilities. Using
2115: SSA+SIA, the prior probabilities are adjusted in favour of the theory
2116: that intelligent observers are common, and these probabilities are
2117: again unchanged by the observation that we exist. Consideration of
2118: star-beings as possible companion observers produces results analogous
2119: to those discussed above for Marochnik's theory --- consistency
2120: requires that the reference class include all intelligent observers,
2121: and the conclusions using SSA$-$SIA, but not SSA+SIA, depend on the
2122: number of companion observers.
2123:
2124: In summary, consideration of companion observers provides strong
2125: evidence that in scenarios where the density of observers varies, the
2126: conclusions found using SSA+SIA are correct, whereas those found using
2127: SSA$-$SIA are not. Certainly, the conclusions of SSA$-$SIA regarding
2128: Marochnik's theory seem quite acceptable. Lingering unease may
2129: remain, however, when the shift in prior odds produced by SIA is not
2130: the factor of 10 to 100 that occurs with Marochnik's theory, but
2131: rather a factor of a trillion or more, which one can imagine could
2132: occur with some other theory. I will consider such cases of extreme
2133: ``presumption'' below, when discussing FNC, which I see as the more
2134: principled, even if largely equivalent, alternative to SSA+SIA.
2135:
2136:
2137: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}Theories differing in the density of observers
2138: --- result of applying FNC}\label{sec-density-fnc}\vspace*{-5pt}
2139:
2140: To apply FNC, you multiply your prior odds for one theory over
2141: another, based on ordinary scientific evidence, by the ratio of the
2142: probabilities that these theories give for someone to exist with your
2143: exact memories (excluding your scientific knowledge that contributed
2144: to the original prior odds, but including any additional scientific
2145: observations). As discussed in Section~\ref{sec-fnc}, the results of
2146: applying FNC are much the same as those of applying SSA+SIA. Thinking
2147: in terms of FNC avoids the need to specify any reference class of
2148: observers, however, and clarifies the issues that are involved in this
2149: type of reasoning.
2150:
2151: Here is a superficial analysis of how FNC applies to
2152: Marochnik's theory versus the ``planets everywhere'' theory, which was
2153: discussed in Section~\ref{sec-density} using SSA$-$SIA and SSA+SIA.
2154: If a total of $C$ earth-like planets exist according to the ``planets
2155: everywhere'' theory, and each has some very small probability,
2156: $\epsilon$, of producing someone with your exact memories, then the
2157: probability of your existing according to the ``planets everywhere''
2158: theory is $\epsilon C$ (assuming, as I am, that this is much less than
2159: one). According to Marochnik's theory, the number of earth-like
2160: planets will be smaller by the factor $f$, and hence the probability
2161: that you exist will be only $\epsilon f C$. Assuming equal prior
2162: probabilities for the two theories, your odds in favour of Marochnik's
2163: theory should be $f$, if this is all you know. Suppose you then make
2164: a reliable observation that the sun is in the special region where,
2165: according to Marochnik's theory, earth-like planets can form. Your
2166: odds in favour of Marochnik's theory should then change to~1 (ie, the
2167: two theories should become equally likely), since the chance that
2168: someone exists with your memories --- including your memory of
2169: observing that the sun is in this region --- is the same for both
2170: theories. The extra earth-like planets that exist according to the
2171: ``planets everywhere'' theory do not increase the probability that you
2172: will exist, since a being on a planet outside the special region is
2173: very unlikely to remember having observed that they are in the special
2174: region, and also have your other memories. (See Section~\ref{sec-fo}
2175: for consideration of the possibility of false observations.) These
2176: conclusions are the same as those found in Section~\ref{sec-density}
2177: using SSA+SIA.
2178:
2179: Although I believe that this superficial analysis produces the correct
2180: result, it conceals a number of subtleties. One is that, contrary to
2181: what is implicitly assumed in the argument above, earth-like planets
2182: in other galaxies could not really produce someone having your
2183: memories, assuming that you have seen the numerous photos of
2184: distant galaxies that most people have seen. From a planet in a
2185: different galaxy, these galaxies would be viewed from a different
2186: angle, be much larger or smaller, or be obscured. (As discussed
2187: earlier, I assume for the moment that the universe is not so large
2188: that one would expect to find another galaxy whose views of other
2189: galaxies are just by chance virtually identical to ours.) Because of
2190: this, it is actually essential to the argument that Marochnik's theory
2191: applies not just to most galaxies, but to our galaxy in particular.
2192: If our galaxy were a rare exception in which earth-like planets were
2193: possible everywhere even according to Marochnik's theory (and you knew
2194: this), applying FNC would not change the probabilities of the two
2195: theories, since the probability that you would exist in our galaxy
2196: (where you clearly are) would be the same for both theories. Careful
2197: application of SSA+SIA would also lead to this conclusion, but only
2198: because the shift in odds away from Marochnik's theory that is
2199: produced by SIA is cancelled by applying SSA, taking account of the
2200: greater probability of being in an exceptional galaxy if the other
2201: galaxies are less populated. This seems to me to be a rather perverse
2202: way of reasoning to the correct conclusion, however.
2203:
2204: Furthermore, it is questionable whether a planet in a distant part of
2205: our galaxy --- likely differing from earth in elemental abundances (as
2206: determined by local supernovae), in the local density of stars, in
2207: cosmic ray intensities, and in the view of the Milky Way in the night
2208: sky --- would have even a tiny chance of producing life that evolves
2209: in just the way it has on earth, and of then producing an individual
2210: with your memories. As an analogy, suppose you are given detailed
2211: photographs of a house, which you are told is either in India or in
2212: Canada, and are asked to guess in which of these countries the house
2213: is located. If you are knowledgeable about architectural styles and
2214: construction practices in the two countries, it is quite likely that
2215: you would be able to tell which country the house is located in. Of
2216: course, someone with less knowledge might not be able to tell where
2217: the house is located. Similarly, someone with sufficient knowledge of
2218: our galaxy would likely be able to tell where in our galaxy earth is
2219: located, without the need for any explicit measurement of location.
2220: However, if you lack sufficient knowledge, you will not know where in
2221: the galaxy earth is located without an explicit measurement, and so,
2222: \textit{as far as you know}, any earth-like planet in the galaxy might
2223: have produced someone with your memories, and the more such earth-like
2224: planets there are, the greater the chance that you will exist. Put
2225: another way, the narrow region where earth-like planets are possible
2226: according to Marochnik's theory leads to a restricted range of
2227: possible characteristics of these planets and their inhabitants.
2228: Since you do not know what this range is, you do not know whether or
2229: not the characteristics of earth and humanity are included. The
2230: possibility that they are not reduces the chance of your existing if
2231: Marochnik's theory is true. As this example makes clear, the
2232: probabilities used in FNC may reflect your ignorance, rather than the
2233: operation of some random physical process.
2234:
2235: When applying FNC, it is clear that some ``presumptuous'' conclusions
2236: that may appear to follow from SIA are not actually problematic.
2237: Consider, for example, the theory that all bacteria are intelligent
2238: beings. You may regard this theory as unlikely, and assign it a low
2239: prior probability. However, there are approximately $10^{21}$ times
2240: as many bacteria as humans on earth (Whitman, Coleman, and Wiebe
2241: 1998). Similar ratios for analogous organisms presumably hold on
2242: other earth-like planets. According to SIA, we should therefore
2243: increase the prior odds that bacteria are intelligent by a factor of
2244: $10^{21}$, which may well make the theory highly probable despite its
2245: prior implausibility. However, if you apply FNC rather than SSA+SIA,
2246: the probability of this theory will not be increased --- whether
2247: bacteria are intelligent or not has no effect on the probability that
2248: you will exist with all your memories, since you are not a bacterium.
2249: One does in fact reach this same conclusion in the end using SSA+SIA,
2250: since the huge increase in the theory's probability from applying SIA
2251: is cancelled by an equally huge decrease from the low probability of
2252: an intelligent observer being human if the theory is true. As was the
2253: case above, however, such reasoning based on SSA+SIA seems rather
2254: contorted, even if the right answer is obtained, compared to the
2255: straightforward application of FNC. Note also that according to
2256: SSA$-$SIA, you should decrease your (presumably already low) odds in
2257: favour of bacteria being intelligent by a factor of $10^{21}$, on the
2258: grounds that if they were intelligent, you would likely be a
2259: bacterium. In this scenario it is SSA$-$SIA, not SSA+SIA or FNC, that
2260: could be accused of presumption.
2261:
2262: Scenarios more troubling for an advocate of FNC can be imagined,
2263: however. Suppose you have calculated that the number of earth-like
2264: planets in the galaxy is about one thousand, on the basis of what you
2265: believe to be the correct mechanism of planet formation, and assuming
2266: that Newton's theory of gravity is an adequate approximation. It
2267: occurs to you that perhaps Einstein's theory of gravity would give
2268: different results. You think the chances of this are only about 9\%
2269: (odds of about 1/10), since Newton's theory is usually a good
2270: approximation, but you decide nevertheless to redo the calculation
2271: using Einstein's more accurate theory. This new calculation says that
2272: the number of earth-like planets in the galaxy is about one billion
2273: --- a million times more than found with the Newtonian calculation.
2274: You judge that mistakes in such calculations happen about 10\% of the
2275: time (at least without further checking, which you haven't done yet),
2276: so the probability of getting a divergent result such as you obtained
2277: if Newton's theory is actually an adequate approximation is 10\%
2278: (since a mistake would need to be made), whereas the probability of a
2279: divergent result if Newton's theory is not adequate is about one
2280: (since a correct result would differ, and an error would also be
2281: fairly likely to produce a different result). Using ordinary
2282: reasoning, the result of this calculation should therefore lead you to
2283: multiply by 10 the original odds in favour of the Newtonian
2284: calculation being wrong, which produces odds of about 1. So at this
2285: point, you would consider that the number of earth-like planets in the
2286: galaxy is equally likely to be one thousand or one billion.
2287:
2288: However, if you now apply FNC (or SIA), you will increase the odds in
2289: favour of the Newtonian calculation being wrong by a factor of a
2290: million, since the calculation using Einstein's theory leads to a
2291: factor of a million more earth-like planets, with a corresponding
2292: increase in the probability of someone with your memories existing.
2293: This extreme certainty seems presumptuous, particularly when you
2294: haven't even checked your calculation yet.
2295:
2296: A hint at resolving this problem comes from considering a scenario
2297: that is similar except that the calculations are not of the number of
2298: earth-like planets, but rather of a numerical quantity that has been
2299: precisely measured by experiment. If your calculation using
2300: Einstein's theory produces a very good fit to the experimental data,
2301: you might indeed be highly confident that it is correct, even before
2302: checking it. When calculating the number of earth-like planets,
2303: however, no precise target number is matched --- FNC and SIA just say
2304: that bigger is better, up to whatever limit is imposed by other
2305: observations.
2306:
2307: Accordingly, even if you accept that the number of earth-like planets
2308: with human-like observers must be large, there is no necessity that
2309: this number be large \textit{for this particular reason}. There may
2310: be many ways that the probability of your existing could be
2311: increased other than by increasing the number of earth-like planets
2312: --- for instance, by a higher chance of life developing on each
2313: planet, or a higher chance that once life develops it produces an
2314: intelligent species. If there were no upper limit, FNC or SIA would
2315: just favour all of these, but if there is a limit on the density of
2316: intelligent observers, only a limited number of these factors can
2317: strongly favour more human-like observers, reducing the probability
2318: that any one of them in particular does.
2319:
2320: At this point, recall the assumption stated at the beginning of
2321: Section~\ref{sec-density} --- that intelligent observers in different
2322: star systems have no effect on each other. If this is true, we can
2323: have no bound from observation on the density of intelligent
2324: observers, and the considerations just discussed will not reduce the
2325: excessive certainty of the conclusions from FNC and SIA. However, if
2326: there is a limit on the density of observers, FNC (and SIA) need not
2327: produce unreasonably certain belief in particular theories, such as
2328: that the hypothetical Newtonian calculation above is wrong. We in
2329: fact know that intelligent species may possibly interact. The
2330: implications of this are discussed in detail in Section~\ref{sec-int},
2331: and show that the actual effects of FNC are not what what one would
2332: think from a simplistic consideration of the Presumptuous Philosopher
2333: problem.
2334:
2335:
2336: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}Theories differing in the size of the
2337: universe}\label{sec-varsize}\vspace*{-5pt}
2338:
2339: I will now consider the effect that FNC has on the probabilities of
2340: theories that differ in the size of universe that they predict. The
2341: effects of applying SSA+SIA are similar, but I will omit the details
2342: of this here. As above, I will assume that all theories predict a
2343: universe of a finite size, which moreover is not so large that you
2344: would expect another observer with exactly your memories to exist. I
2345: will also assume that all theories predict a homogeneous universe, in
2346: which intelligent observers arise with some density. In practice,
2347: different theories might well predict both different sizes of the
2348: universe and different densities of observers, but for simplicity, I
2349: will assume here that all theories predict the same density, so that
2350: the total number of observers is simply proportional to the size of
2351: the universe.
2352:
2353: With these assumptions, a Presumptuous Philosopher effect can easily
2354: arise. Suppose theory $A$ says that the universe contains $10^{24}$
2355: galaxies, whereas theory $B$ says that it contains only $10^{12}$
2356: galaxies. If these theories appear equally likely on ordinary
2357: grounds, application of FNC will lead you to consider theory $A$ to be
2358: a trillion times more likely than theory $B$, since it is a trillion
2359: times more likely that someone with your memories will exist somewhere
2360: if theory $A$ is true.\footnote{Here ``somewhere'' could be anywhere
2361: in the universe. In Section~\ref{sec-density-fnc}, where the
2362: large-scale features of the universe could be considered fixed (since
2363: the theories did not differ in this regard), I pointed out that
2364: someone with your memories could exist only in our galaxy. This is
2365: not true in this context, where a galactic neighborhood matching what
2366: we see is more likely to exist if the universe is large than if it is
2367: small.} Note that this implication of FNC holds regardless of any
2368: details of where and how often human-like or other intelligent
2369: observers might or might not arise --- as long as these details are
2370: the same for both theories, the theory producing a bigger universe
2371: will also produce a greater probability that a being with your
2372: memories exists, in direct proportion.\footnote{Theories in which the
2373: universe changes more slowly, and so stays longer in something
2374: resembling the state you currently observe, might also be favoured. I
2375: will not elaborate on this possibility, however, but merely assume
2376: that the universe evolves at the same rate in all theories.}
2377:
2378: This factor of a trillion preference for theory $A$ seems unreasonable
2379: to most people. FNC will produce even greater degrees of certainty in
2380: favour of theories predicting even bigger universes, up to odds of
2381: $10^{30000000000}$ or more, before the assumption of no duplicate
2382: observers breaks down (see Section~\ref{sec-fo}). Unlike the
2383: situation with theories differing in the density of observers, there
2384: seems to be no plausible story involving companion observers that
2385: would provide any support for this result of FNC --- if the star-being
2386: companions of Section~\ref{sec-density} employ FNC in this situation,
2387: they will come to the same extreme conclusion, but will also be
2388: subject to the same intuition that this is unreasonable.
2389:
2390: Olum (2002) offers a way of avoiding the extreme preference for larger
2391: universes produced by FNC (or in his case, SIA) --- reduce the prior
2392: probability of theories in proportion to the size of universe they
2393: predict. In the example above, if we assign theory $A$ a prior
2394: probability a trillion times less than that assigned to theory $B$,
2395: then after the multiplication by a factor of a trillion that comes
2396: from applying FNC, the final odds in favour of theory $A$ will be~1
2397: (ie, $A$ and $B$ will be considered equally likely). This seems
2398: rather contrived, but it does raise a crucial question --- how should
2399: prior probabilities for cosmological theories be assigned?
2400:
2401: For many theories, we can assign well-justified prior probabilities
2402: based on a wealth of background knowledge. Consider, for example,
2403: theories regarding where eels spawn. We can assess their prior
2404: plausibility using our knowledge of the behaviour of other fish, as
2405: well as our knowledge of related matters, such as ocean currents. In
2406: other situations, our prior beliefs will have a less detailed basis,
2407: but will at least incorporate various common-sense constraints. The
2408: background knowledge we use to set priors will itself be based partly
2409: on deeper prior beliefs. If we could trace the origins of our beliefs
2410: back far enough, we would presumably find some genetically-determined
2411: prior biases, that result from natural selection. When assessing
2412: theories of biology, geology, macroscopic physics, or other
2413: earth-bound phenomena, knowing that our prior beliefs have this
2414: ultimate origin is reassuring --- it gives us some reason to think
2415: these prior biases are well founded.
2416:
2417: It is difficult to see, however, why natural selection should have
2418: provided us with genetically-determined biases suitable for assigning
2419: prior probabilities to cosmological theories. Suppose, for example,
2420: that the crucial difference between theories $A$ and $B$ above is that
2421: $A$ says space is flat, with the topology of a torus, whereas $B$ says
2422: space is positively curved, with the topology of a sphere. (Assume
2423: that for some theoretical reason not in dispute, the torus must have a
2424: trillion times the volume of the sphere.) Canceling the effect of FNC
2425: by deciding that the spherical universe should have prior probability
2426: a trillion times greater than the toroidal universe seems quite
2427: arbitrary, but deciding that they should have equal prior
2428: probabilities is really just as arbitrary. We simply have no basis
2429: for any prior beliefs regarding the topology of the universe.
2430:
2431: A further difficulty is that we have no firm basis for excluding
2432: ``extraneous'' multiple universes. Suppose the advocates of theory
2433: $B$ above modify it to produce theory $B^*$, which is just like $B$,
2434: except that rather than postulating the existence of only the single
2435: universe we observe, it claims that there are a trillion similar
2436: universes, which differ only in the actual results of random physical
2437: processes.\footnote{Of course, this will not work if theory $B$ is
2438: deterministic, but there will likely be ``pseudo-random'' aspects of
2439: any theory, sensitive to slight changes in parameters or initial
2440: conditions, that would again allow for a multiplicity of similar, but
2441: not identical, universes.} The probability of someone with your
2442: memories existing in any of these universes is now the same as for
2443: theory $A$. This maneuver may appear unaesthetic, at least if these
2444: trillion universes have no possibility of interacting, but compared to
2445: the previous situation with odds of a trillion against theory $B$,
2446: lack of elegance is a minor problem.
2447:
2448: Is rationally assigning prior probabilities to cosmological theories
2449: simply impossible? Perhaps not entirely. Sometimes, the theories
2450: being compared all assume the same fundamental physical laws, but
2451: represent different calculations of the consequences of these laws.
2452: Two theories of galaxy formation, for example, are likely to assume
2453: the same laws for gravitation and other forces, and may also assume
2454: the same initial conditions from the big bang. If so, the theories
2455: can be seen a making different approximations to a single mathematical
2456: result, whose exact computation is infeasible. We have some
2457: experience with mathematical approximations, and so have some basis
2458: for assigning prior probabilities to which (if any) of these theories
2459: is correct.
2460:
2461: Because of the lack of clarity surrounding these issues, I see no
2462: clear grounds for rejecting FNC or SIA on the basis of their
2463: supposedly counterintuitive consequences regarding theories with
2464: differently-sized universes. Greater clarity might be obtained by
2465: considering examples of actual cosmological theories that predict
2466: universes of different (finite) sizes, but I am not aware of any such
2467: examples. Most current cosmological theories favour a universe, or
2468: universes, of infinite size, as I discuss below in
2469: Section~\ref{sec-inf}.
2470:
2471:
2472: \section{\hspace*{-7pt}Anthropic arguments in
2473: cosmology}\label{sec-cosmo}\vspace*{-10pt}
2474:
2475: I conclude by applying FNC to some interesting problems in cosmology,
2476: some of which will also help further clarify the general issues
2477: involving FNC, SSA, and SIA.
2478:
2479: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}How densely do intelligent
2480: species occur?}\label{sec-int}\vspace*{-5pt}
2481:
2482: I start with what can be seen as a continuation of the discussion
2483: regarding the density of observers in Sections~\ref{sec-density}
2484: and~\ref{sec-density-fnc}, except that I will now apply FNC in
2485: conjunction with our actual empirical knowledge, which does not
2486: correspond to the earlier assumption that there is no possibility of
2487: intelligent species interacting.
2488:
2489: Our knowledge of astronomy and technology leads us to believe that if
2490: intelligent extraterrestrials exist, it would probably not be
2491: tremendously difficult for them, or at least their robotic probes, to
2492: visit earth. (We ourselves are likely to have this capability within
2493: at most a few hundred years, unless our technological civilization
2494: collapses.) Interstellar travel is likely to be costly, of course,
2495: and will certainly require patience, due to the speed of light limit.
2496: Many extraterrestrials may decide not to undertake such exploration.
2497: But if a large number of extraterrestrial species exist, it seems
2498: certain that at least a fair number will explore neighboring stars.
2499: Sometimes exploration will be followed by colonization, producing a
2500: sphere of habitation that expands at perhaps 1\% of the speed of
2501: light. In this manner, a single species could reach most of the
2502: galaxy in around 10~million years, which is a small fraction of the
2503: galaxy's age.
2504:
2505: Radio communication with extraterrestrial civilizations is much easier
2506: than travel, and is well within our current capabilities (at least if
2507: transmissions are directed at a particular star).
2508:
2509: Despite this, we do not currently observe any extraterrestrials, nor
2510: do we see any evidence that they have been in our vicinity in the
2511: past.\footnote{Readers who believe they have observed
2512: extraterrestrials may of course apply FNC themselves, and reach
2513: different conclusions than I do here.} This conflict with
2514: expectations has been called ``Fermi's Paradox'', and has prompted
2515: many attempts at explanation, summarized in a review by Brin (1983).
2516: The paradox seems even more severe if you consider FNC (or SIA) to be
2517: a correct principle of inference, since it seems there would then be a
2518: further bias in favour of a high density of intelligent
2519: extraterrestrial species (of the sort who ``might have'' produced an
2520: observer with your memories).
2521:
2522: The application of FNC to this problem is actually more subtle,
2523: however. For someone with your memories to exist, it is necessary not
2524: only for a suitable planet to exist, but also for the subsequent
2525: evolution of an intelligent species on that planet to proceed without
2526: disturbance by other intelligent species. Once someone like you
2527: is produced, they must remain unaware of contact with any other
2528: intelligent species. There is therefore a tradeoff. If earth-like
2529: planets are common, if life arises easily on each planet, if
2530: intelligence species are likely to evolve, and to develop a
2531: technological civilization, the existence of someone with your
2532: memories will be more likely, \textit{provided} there is no
2533: interference by some other intelligent species. But these same
2534: factors increase the probability that such an interfering species will
2535: exist.
2536:
2537: A realistic analysis of this situation would be complex, as can be
2538: seen from earlier related work on interstellar colonization, such as
2539: that of Hanson (1998). I will consider only a fairly simple and
2540: abstract model intended to show the general nature of the tradeoff
2541: described above. This model has three components.
2542:
2543: First, suppose that the mechanisms of galaxy formation are known, and
2544: that the pattern of stars in our galaxy is beyond the influence of
2545: intelligent life. Someone with your memories, which include your
2546: memory of the night sky, can then only have arisen on a planet of our
2547: sun, at the current time. Suppose, however, that we have various
2548: theories regarding planet formation, the origin of life, the evolution
2549: of intelligence, and the development of technological civilization.
2550: Any particular combination of theories will produce some (tiny)
2551: probability, $p$, that an individual with your memories will arise,
2552: \textit{assuming} that this development is not interfered with by a
2553: species from elsewhere. Note that you don't know $p$, since you
2554: don't know which theories are true, though you have prior
2555: probabilities for them based on ordinary scientific knowledge.
2556:
2557: Second, suppose the probability that an intelligent species with our
2558: level of science and technology will arise in a region of size $dw$
2559: around spacetime point $w$ is $p\, M(w)\, dw$, where $M(w)$ is a known
2560: function giving the relative densities of intelligent species
2561: originating at different times and places. $M(w)$ will be zero
2562: outside of galaxies, and at times too early for life to have
2563: developed. Making the probability of such an intelligent species
2564: arising elsewhere be proportional to $p$ incorporates the assumption
2565: that the unknown factors that influence the probability of your
2566: existence are the same as those that influence the probability of
2567: other intelligent species arising.
2568:
2569: Third, suppose there is a known function, $A(w)$, and an unknown
2570: factor, $f$, such that $f A(w)$ is the probability that a species
2571: arising at spacetime location $w$ will destroy the possibility of
2572: someone with your memories existing --- either by colonizing earth and
2573: thereby preventing the development of humans, or by simply making its
2574: existence known to you before the present time, contrary to your
2575: actual memories. Assuming influences are limited by the speed of
2576: light, $A(w)$ will be zero if $w$ is outside your past light-cone.
2577: The factor $f$ will depend on how stable technological civilizations
2578: are, how easy interstellar travel is, and how often intelligent
2579: species are motivated to communicate, explore, and colonize. Assume
2580: you have prior distributions for these factors, and hence also for $f$.
2581:
2582: We can now write the expected number of other species that interfere with
2583: your existence as follows:\vspace*{-10pt}
2584: \beq
2585: \int\, f A(w)\, p\, M(w)\, dw & = & fp\,\int A(w)M(w)\, dw \ \ =\ \ fp V
2586: \eeq
2587: where $V=\int A(w)M(w)\, dw$. Suppose that either $fpV$ is small (of order 1
2588: or less), or any interference from distant spacetime points is largely
2589: independent, so that the distribution of the number of interfering species
2590: will be approximately Poisson. The probability that no species interferes
2591: will then be $\exp(-fpV)$, and hence the probability that someone with your
2592: memories exists will be\vspace*{-10pt}
2593: \beq
2594: P(\mbox{someone like you exists}) & = & p\, \exp(-fpV)
2595: \label{eq-you-given-fp}
2596: \eeq
2597: This is maximized when $p\,=\,1\,/\,fV$, corresponding to $fpV=1$.
2598: Thus we see that although FNC favours as large a value of $p$ as
2599: possible when there are no interactions between species, this is not
2600: true when interactions such as those modeled here exist, thereby
2601: justifying the comments at the end of Section~\ref{sec-density-fnc}.
2602:
2603: The Fermi Paradox now seems unsurprising. If the expected number of
2604: other intelligent species to influence earth, which is equal to $fpV$,
2605: is around one, we should not be especially surprised that we have not
2606: seen evidence of any other species. We still have no specific
2607: explanation of what factors are responsible for this, however. In the
2608: other direction, discovery of another intelligent species would also
2609: not be surprising, especially if we looked somewhat more widely than
2610: the region where a species would have influenced us without effort on
2611: our part.
2612:
2613: Further analysis requires some assumptions about your uncertainty
2614: regarding $p$ and $f$. If many unknown factors affect $p$ and $f$, in
2615: a multiplicative fashion, it may be reasonable (due to the Central
2616: Limit Theorem) to suppose that $\log(p)$ and $\log(f)$ have Gaussian
2617: prior distributions. It is also plausible that $p$ and $f$ are
2618: independent, \textit{a~priori}.
2619:
2620: Multiplying this prior density for $\log(p)$ and $\log(f)$ by the
2621: probability that you exist for given values of $p$ and $f$, from
2622: equation~(\ref{eq-you-given-fp}), and renormalizing, gives the
2623: posterior joint probability density for $\log(p)$ and $\log(f)$. This
2624: density is not analytically tractable, but is easily displayed
2625: graphically by means of a sample of points, as shown in the
2626: accompanying figure. Note that the numerical magnitude of $p$ depends
2627: on exactly how detailed your memories are, and hence is probably not
2628: of much interest. The scale of $f$ is arbitrary, since it can be
2629: compensated for by a change in the scale of $A(w)$, and hence of $V$.
2630: It is convenient to set the scale of $f$ so that the mean of
2631: $\log(p)+\log(f)$ is zero. The parameters of interest are then the
2632: value of $V$ and the standard deviations of $\log(p)$ and $\log(f)$.
2633: The top-left plot shows a sample of 500 points from
2634: the prior with standard deviation for $\log_{10}(p)$ of 1.25, giving a
2635: 95\% central interval for $p$ that spans a range of $10^5$, and
2636: standard deviation for $\log_{10}(f)$ of 0.75, giving a 95\% central
2637: interval for $f$ that spans a range of $10^3$.
2638:
2639: \begin{figure}[p]
2640:
2641: \vspace*{-25pt}
2642:
2643: \hspace*{10pt}\includegraphics{plots-fixed.ps}
2644:
2645: \vspace*{12pt}
2646:
2647: Plots of prior and posterior distributions for $\log_{10}(f)$
2648: (horizontal axis) and $\log_{10}(p)$ (vertical axis). The top-left
2649: plot shows 500 points drawn from the prior described in the text. The
2650: top-right plot shows 500 points from the posterior distribution given
2651: that someone with your memories exists, assuming $V=0.1$. The bottom
2652: plots show the posterior distributions assuming $V=1$ and $V=10$.
2653: Tick marks are spaced one unit apart, representing change in $f$ or
2654: $p$ by a factor of 10. The diagonal lines indicate where
2655: $\log_{10}(f)\,+\,\log_{10}(p)\, =\, -\log_{10}(V)$.
2656:
2657: \end{figure}
2658:
2659: The remaining plots in the figure show samples of points from the
2660: posterior for $\log(p)$ and $\log(f)$ when $V$ is $0.1$, $1$, and
2661: $10$. The lines shown are where
2662: $\log_{10}(p)\,+\,\log_{10}(f)\,=\,-\log_{10}(V)$, indicating for each
2663: $f$ the value of $p$ that maximizes the probability that someone with
2664: your memories exists.\footnote{Some details:\ \
2665: The effect of the factor $p$ in
2666: equation~(\ref{eq-you-given-fp}) is to shift the mean of
2667: $\log_{10}(p)$ by $1.25^2\log(10)$, with the distribution remaining
2668: Gaussian with the same standard deviation. The remaining factor of
2669: $\exp(-fpV)$ is never greater than one, so rejection sampling can be
2670: used to obtain the posterior sample.} Larger values of $V$ correspond
2671: to a greater potential for another species to develop and then interfere
2672: with your existence, a potential that is modulated by same factor,
2673: $p$, that controls the likelihood of your development. Accordingly,
2674: larger values of $V$ shift the posterior distribution towards smaller
2675: values of $p$. The posterior distribution of $f$ is also shifted
2676: towards smaller values (more so for large $V$), since smaller values
2677: of $f$ reduce the probability that another species will interfere.
2678:
2679: We can now determine the effect of FNC on your uncertainty concerning
2680: one factor that enters into $p$. Let us write $p=p_0p_1$, where $p_1$
2681: is a single relevant factor, such as the probability that
2682: multi-cellular life will evolve from single-celled life, and $p_0$ is
2683: the product of all other factors. Suppose that $p_0$ and $p_1$ are
2684: independent, and that your prior distribution for $\log_{10}(p_1)$ is
2685: Gaussian with mean $\log_{10}(0.1)$ and standard deviation 0.2, giving
2686: a 95\% central interval for $p_1$ of 0.041 to 0.247, and a mean for
2687: $p_1$ of $0.111$. (Your prior for $\log_{10}(p_0)$ will therefore be
2688: Gaussian with standard deviation $\sqrt{1.25^2-0.2^2}\,=\,1.234$.)
2689: The conditional distribution for $\log_{10}(p_1)$ given $\log_{10}(p)$
2690: is Gaussian with mean given by
2691: \beq
2692: \lefteqn{E[\log_{10}(p_1)\ |\ \log_{10}(p)]}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \nonumber\\[4pt]
2693: & = &
2694: E[\log_{10}(p_1)]\ +\
2695: \big(\log_{10}(p)-E[\log_{10}(p)]\big)
2696: \,\Var[\log_{10}(p_1)]\,\big/\,\Var[\log_{10}(p)] \\[4pt]
2697: & = & \log_{10}(0.1)\,+\,\big(\log_{10}(p)-E[\log_{10}(p)]\big)\,0.2^2/1.25^2
2698: \\[4pt]
2699: & = & \log_{10}(0.1)\,+\,0.0256\,\big(\log_{10}(p)-E[\log_{10}(p)]\big)
2700: \label{eq-cond-m}
2701: \eeq
2702: and variance given by
2703: \beq
2704: \Var[\log_{10}(p_1)\ |\ \log_{10}(p)] & = &
2705: \Var[\log_{10}(p_1)]\,
2706: \big(1\,-\Var[\log_{10}(p_1)]\,\big/\,\Var[\log_{10}(p)]\big) \\[4pt]
2707: & = & 0.2^2\,(1\, -\, 0.2^2/1.25^2) \ \ =\ \ 0.0390
2708: \label{eq-cond-v}
2709: \eeq
2710: To find the posterior mean of $\log_{10}(p_1)$ given
2711: that someone with your memories exists, we take the mean of~(\ref{eq-cond-m})
2712: with respect to the posterior distribution of $\log_{10}(p)$. The
2713: posterior variance of $\log_{10}(p_1)$ is the sum of~(\ref{eq-cond-v})
2714: and the variance of~(\ref{eq-cond-m})
2715: with respect to the posterior distribution of $\log_{10}(p)$.
2716:
2717: If $V=0$, so other intelligent species have no effect on earth, the
2718: result of this computation is that the posterior mean and standard
2719: deviation of $\log_{10}(p_1)$ are $\log_{10}(0.1236)$ and $0.2$, which
2720: give a 95\% central interval of 0.050 to 0.305, and a posterior mean
2721: for $p_1$ of $0.137$. When $V=0$, the posterior distribution
2722: of $\log_{10}(p_1)$ is Gaussian, and is the same as would be
2723: obtained if $p_1$ were the only uncertain factor. There is a
2724: significant ``Presumptuous Philosopher'' effect from applying FNC,
2725: although it is not as large in magnitude as some previous examples.
2726:
2727: In contrast, the effect of FNC on the distribution of $p_1$ is much
2728: less when $V$ is of significant size, even though, as can be seen in
2729: the plots, the posterior distribution of $p$ itself is quite different
2730: from the prior. The posterior mean and standard deviation of
2731: $\log_{10}(p_1)$ are $\log_{10}(0.1080)$ and $0.1985$ when $V=0.1$,
2732: $\log_{10}(0.1042)$ and $0.1984$ when $V=1$, and $\log_{10}(0.1003)$
2733: and $0.1984$ when $V=10$. The posterior means of $p_1$ for these
2734: values of $V$ are $0.120$, $0.116$, and $0.111$. The last is nearly
2735: identical to the prior mean of $p_1$, so there is almost no
2736: ``Presumptuous Philosopher'' effect on inference regarding this single
2737: factor of $p$ when $V=10$. With larger values of $V$, it is possible
2738: for the posterior mean of $p_1$ to be less than the prior mean.
2739:
2740: When $V=0$, the posterior distribution of $f$ is the same as the
2741: prior, but with larger $V$, the posterior favours smaller values for
2742: $f$, as can be seen in the plots. We can look at a single factor
2743: entering into $f$, just as we did for $p$. If we write $f=f_0f_1$, we
2744: can proceed much as above. Suppose the prior for $\log_{10}(f_1)$ is
2745: Gaussian with mean $\log_{10}(0.1)$ and standard deviation $0.2$,
2746: giving a prior mean for $f_1$ of 0.111. The posterior mean of $f_1$
2747: is 0.111, 0.097, 0.093, and 0.089 for $V=0$, $V=0.1$, $V=1$, and
2748: $V=10$. A substantial change occurs when you condition on someone
2749: with your memories existing, with the effect increasing as $V$
2750: increases.
2751:
2752: This is disturbing, since many of the factors contributing to $f$ ---
2753: such as the probability of a technological civilization avoiding
2754: self-destruction, and the probability that interstellar travel is
2755: feasible --- are also relevant to human prospects, with larger values
2756: being more favourable. (However, some other factors going into $f$,
2757: such as the probability that an intelligent species will decide to
2758: destroy the potential habitat of another intelligent species, are
2759: ones that many of us would not wish to be large.) There is thus a
2760: ``doomsday'' aspect to this analysis, since use of FNC has revealed
2761: that we should increase the probability we assign to some negative
2762: scenarios, above the probability we would assign based on ordinary
2763: considerations. The source of this pessimism is quite different from
2764: that of the Doomsday Argument of Section~\ref{sec-da}, however. It is
2765: based on the empirical observation that we are not aware of any other
2766: intelligent species. One possible explanation of this observation is
2767: that most intelligent species are destroyed in some fashion, or at
2768: least fail to develop in a way that would make their presence known to
2769: us. This is a reason to increase our assessment of the probability of
2770: this happening to us.
2771:
2772: The magnitude of pessimism that this argument warrants depends on our
2773: beliefs regarding a wide range of topics in physics, astronomy,
2774: biology, and sociology. In contrast, the Doomsday Argument depends
2775: only on the size of the future human population in different
2776: scenarios, and can produce very large probabilities of ``doom'' if the
2777: alternative is a future involving interstellar colonization, or even
2778: just intensive settlement of the solar system. Arguments based on FNC
2779: are unlikely to produce such extreme pessimism.
2780:
2781:
2782: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}Inflation and infinite
2783: universes}\label{sec-inf}\vspace*{-5pt}
2784:
2785: Cosmological theories in which an early period of ``inflation''
2786: greatly expands the universe imply that the universe we are in is
2787: infinite in size.\footnote{At least according to Knobe, Olum, and
2788: Vilenkin (2006), though Olum (2004) says models of finite inflationary
2789: universes can be contrived.} Furthermore, in most such cosmologies,
2790: our universe is only one of many within a larger ``multiverse''.
2791: Finally, these theories do not produce any tight linkage between
2792: distant parts of the universe, which might constrain them either to be
2793: similar in detail, or different. It follows that in an inflationary
2794: universe we should expect all possible observers to exist, each an
2795: infinite number of times. In particular, there should be an infinite
2796: number of distant observers with exactly your current memories.
2797:
2798: This is a problem for FNC. If you accept inflationary cosmology as
2799: correct, someone with your memories exists with probability one,
2800: regardless of what else might be true. Conditioning on the existence
2801: of someone with your memories will then have no effect on the
2802: probabilities of any other theories. In particular, FNC no longer
2803: provides a solution to the Freak Observers problem
2804: (Section~\ref{sec-fo}).
2805:
2806: However, an infinite universe leads to many other problems as well.
2807: For example, Knobe, Olum, and Vilenkin (2006) discuss the ethical
2808: implications of an infinite universe. These and other issues with
2809: infinities do not seem at all clear to me. As an interim solution, I
2810: advocate simply \textit{ignoring} the problem of infinity, which is
2811: certainly what everyone does in everyday life.
2812:
2813: My primary justification for ignoring the problems FNC has with
2814: infinity is that the finite size necessary to cause problems is
2815: extraordinary large. As discussed in Section~\ref{sec-fo}, for
2816: duplicate observers to exist, the universe must be a huge number of
2817: orders of magnitude greater than the portion of the universe we
2818: presently observe. Can the difference between an unimaginably vast
2819: universe and one that is truly infinite actually be crucial to our
2820: inferences regarding local matters, which concern only the small
2821: region within a few tens of billions of light years of us?
2822:
2823: Conceivably, the answer is yes. But it seems more likely to me that
2824: either the infinity will disappear once the theory is better
2825: understood, or it will turn out that its implications, at least for
2826: the questions dealt with here, are not great. The situation is
2827: analogous to thought experiments with extreme assumptions, where (as
2828: discussed in Section~\ref{sec-fant}) there is a danger that our
2829: reasoning will implicitly use premises that are not true given these
2830: extreme assumptions. The difference, of course, is that the extreme
2831: assumption in this case concerns reality, and may ultimately prove
2832: unavoidable. But it seems best to try to avoid it at least initially.
2833:
2834: Some technical matters also support the strategy of ignoring infinity.
2835: First, even if the universe we are in is infinite, our knowledge of it
2836: is certainly not infinite, since distant parts of the universe are
2837: outside our past light-cone, due to the universe's finite age. This
2838: is fortunate, since if we were subjected to non-negligible influences
2839: from every part of an infinite universe, our experience would be a
2840: incomprehensible jumble. (This is just a more general form of Olbers'
2841: Paradox --- that if the universe is infinite, the night sky should be
2842: white.) Should the infinite regions with which we have had no contact
2843: really count as part of ``our'' universe? One might argue that they
2844: should, one the grounds the we might be in contact with them in the
2845: future. Whether this is so depends on details of the universe's
2846: expansion, but let's suppose that any two regions of the universe,
2847: even very distant ones, will eventually come into contact. Who will
2848: receive information from such distant regions? You will likely be
2849: dead, but suppose instead that you have achieved immortality. If you
2850: are actually attending to news from distant regions, you must be
2851: expanding your memory. But any increase in your memory results in a
2852: huge increase in the size of universe needed for a duplicate observer
2853: with your exact memories to exist. So it is difficult to imagine any
2854: scenario in which the existence of duplicate observers has
2855: observational consequences.
2856:
2857: It is therefore not surprising that the puzzle presented by Olum
2858: (2004) as arising from inflationary cosmology is not really dependent
2859: on the universe being infinite.\footnote{A universe of the size we
2860: observe probably suffices. A bigger universe could be necessary if
2861: for some reason life is extraordinary rare, but if so, the larger size
2862: will not cause problems for FNC, since the probability of duplicate
2863: observers will also be lower if life is rare. It is possible that
2864: Olum sees an infinite universe as necessary to justify use of SSA,
2865: thinking it would then be the only way to avoid the Freak Observers
2866: problem.} Olum considers the probability that an intelligent species
2867: will colonizing its galaxy (or even many galaxies), and thereby
2868: achieve an enormous population (eg, $10^{19}$ individuals), and
2869: concludes that the probability of a species doing this, while perhaps
2870: substantially less than one, is not minuscule. Accordingly, one would
2871: expect most intelligent observers to belong to such a galactic
2872: civilization. Yet we don't. Olum sees this as a conflict between
2873: observation and ``anthropic reasoning'', by which he means
2874: SSA$-$SIA.\footnote{Previously (Olum 2002), he had advocated SSA+SIA,
2875: but he apparently had doubts about SIA at the time of this paper, and
2876: more recently (Knobe, Olum, and Vilenkin 2006).} If you consider
2877: yourself to be a randomly selected observer, as advocated by SSA, you
2878: should very likely be either a member of some other species that has
2879: colonized their galaxy, or be a human from later in our history, when
2880: we have done so.
2881:
2882: Although Olum doesn't present it as such, this is essentially the
2883: Doomsday Argument (applied in the context of many species, as in
2884: Section~\ref{sec-da-et}), except that Olum is sufficiently confident
2885: that doom is not nearly universal that he regards the result of the
2886: argument as a paradox rather than a prediction. Trying to resolve the
2887: paradox, he considers the possibility that ``anthropic reasoning''
2888: (SSA$-$SIA) is invalid, along with other possibilities (eg, galactic
2889: colonization is actually exceedingly difficult). He comes to no
2890: definite conclusion, but considers that several of these possibilities
2891: might together be sufficient to explain the conflict.
2892:
2893: My conclusion is that ``anthropic reasoning'' --- meaning SSA$-$SIA
2894: --- is indeed invalid. In contrast, application of FNC produces no
2895: paradox. Suppose we know that intelligent species are very rare, and
2896: hence seldom interact, so that we can ignore the complexities
2897: discussed in Section~\ref{sec-int}. The probability of an observer
2898: such as you existing, as a member of a species that has not colonized
2899: the galaxy, is determined by factors influencing the evolution of
2900: species up to our stage of development. It is irrelevant what happens
2901: to these species later; hence it is irrelevant whether, for example,
2902: galactic colonization is easy or hard.\footnote{Two explanations
2903: considered by Olum are not irrelevant:\ \ We are part of a galactic
2904: civilization without being aware of it, or (perhaps a special case of
2905: this) we don't actually live on earth, but rather exist in a computer
2906: simulation. Both possibilities could increase the probability of
2907: someone with your memories existing, and hence might be favoured by
2908: FNC.}
2909:
2910: Anthropic reasoning has also been applied to theories in which
2911: multiple inflating universes can have different values of fundamental
2912: physical parameters, in particular the ``cosmological constant'',
2913: which influences how rapidly the universe expands. The observed value
2914: of the cosmological constant is close to, but not exactly, zero. The
2915: most well-accepted theories of the cosmological constant provide no
2916: apparent reason for it to be as small as it is --- it might equally
2917: well have any value over a range that is $10^{120}$ larger than its
2918: actual value. However, Weinberg (1987) calculated that only a much
2919: narrower range of values around zero will lead to the formation of
2920: galaxies, which he considered a prerequisite for life to exist. Since
2921: subsequent measurements found a non-zero value in this range, this
2922: calculation has been taken to be a successful prediction using the
2923: Anthropic Principle. I will critique such reasoning below in
2924: connection with string theory, where this and related anthropic
2925: arguments have recently become prominent.
2926:
2927:
2928: \subsection{\hspace*{-7pt}The landscape of string
2929: theory}\label{sec-land}\vspace*{-5pt}
2930:
2931: String theory is an attempt to unify Einstein's theory of gravity with
2932: the ``Standard Model'', which describes electromagnetism and the weak
2933: and strong nuclear forces. String theorists originally hoped that the
2934: requirement of mathematical consistency would produce a unique theory,
2935: which would predict the previously unexplained parameters of the
2936: Standard Model, such as the masses of elementary particles. Though
2937: this possibility has not been definitely ruled out, many string
2938: theorists now think it more likely that hundreds of parameters of the
2939: theory can be varied while retaining consistency. This results in a
2940: huge ``landscape'' of possible physical laws, with perhaps $10^{500}$
2941: or more possibilities, each of which produces different values for the
2942: parameters of the Standard Model, and for the cosmological constant.
2943: The universe sits in a ``valley'' in this landscape, to which it
2944: ``descended'' during its inflationary period. If a huge number of
2945: inflating universes formed, or if, following the Many Worlds
2946: interpretation of quantum mechanics, a single universe has a huge
2947: number of superposed versions, almost all valleys of the landscape
2948: will be populated by one or more universes. The landscape will then
2949: describe not just a set of mathematical possibilities, but an actual
2950: multitude of real universes.
2951:
2952: This view of string theory and cosmology has been advocated by
2953: Susskind (2003, 2006), who then uses it as a basis for anthropic
2954: reasoning. In his view, the particular values of the physical
2955: parameters we observe, and indeed, even the set of particles we see,
2956: cannot be explained by the requirements of any fundamental theory, but
2957: they can be explained (at least partially) by the requirement that the
2958: universe contain intelligent observers such as ourselves, since
2959: otherwise there would be no one to look for an explanation. In other
2960: words, we measure the values of the physical constants that we do
2961: because only these values (or similar values) allow for the existence
2962: of someone to measure them.
2963:
2964: Unfortunately, Susskind is not too clear on the exact purpose of this
2965: reasoning, or its justification. Before attempting to critique his
2966: views, I will try to clarify the issues by discussing what one might
2967: conclude by applying FNC.
2968:
2969: As discussed in Section~\ref{sec-inf}, infinite universes pose a
2970: problem for FNC. Accordingly, I will suppose that the landscape is
2971: populated by only around $10^{600}$ universes (more than enough to
2972: guarantee at least one in each of $10^{500}$ valleys) and that each
2973: universe has at most $10^{350}$ galaxies (much more than the $10^{11}$
2974: we can observe in our universe). If each galaxy has $10^{10}$
2975: inhabited planets, each of which has a generous $10^{20}$ inhabitants,
2976: who are replaced by equal numbers for $10^{20}$ generations, the total
2977: number of intelligent observers in all universes who ever exist will
2978: be at most $10^{1000}$. As discussed in Section~\ref{sec-fo}, this is
2979: far too few for there to be any non-negligible chance of another
2980: observer with your exact memories existing.
2981:
2982: In this scenario, we can apply FNC without difficulty. Conceivably,
2983: the answers we obtain might not be correct if in reality there are an
2984: infinite number of universes of truly infinite extent. However, in
2985: none of the anthropic arguments I am aware of does such a distinction
2986: between unimaginably vast and truly infinite universes play any
2987: apparent role. If infinity is actually crucial, the proponents of
2988: anthropic arguments need to make the reason for this more explicit.
2989:
2990: Consider two cosmological theories, in both of which there are
2991: $10^{600}$ universes formed by inflation. In theory $L$, these
2992: universes populate a huge number of valleys in a landscape of possible
2993: physical laws, as described above. In theory $S$, there is either no
2994: landscape, perhaps because the requirement of mathematical consistency
2995: uniquely determines physical laws, or the landscape has only a single
2996: valley, which has much the same effect once inflation is over. If
2997: string theory is accepted as the correct foundation of physics, and
2998: its basic principles are not in dispute, whether $L$ or $S$ is the
2999: correct theory may be a mathematical question, whose answer we are
3000: ignorant of only because of the difficulty of performing the necessary
3001: calculations. Alternatively, $L$ and $S$ may have different
3002: foundations, even though they both lead to similar collections of
3003: inflating universes. In either case, suppose that, on mathematical
3004: and physical grounds, you judge the two theories to be equally
3005: plausible. What should you judge the probabilities of these theories
3006: to be after applying FNC, conditioning on all your memories, both of
3007: everyday life, and of the results of whatever scientific measurements
3008: have been performed?
3009:
3010: We can distinguish two situations. First, suppose that the unique
3011: parameters underlying theory $S$ are known, and that at least some of
3012: the implications of these fundamental parameters for the parameters of
3013: the Standard Model and for the value of the cosmological constant have
3014: been worked out. I'll refer to this version of theory $S$ as theory
3015: $S_1$. If the implications of theory $S_1$ contradict experimental
3016: measurements, we can clearly rule out $S_1$, and conclude that
3017: theory $L$ is true (assuming that these are the only alternatives).
3018: Note that ``measurement'' includes general observations, such as the
3019: existence of galaxies, which may rule out certain values for
3020: parameters of the Standard Model or for the cosmological constant.
3021: Alternatively, the fundamental parameters of theory $S_1$ may produced
3022: parameters for the Standard Model and cosmological constant that lie
3023: within the region, $Y$, that so far as you know is compatible with
3024: observation. The probability that someone with your memories will
3025: exist according to theory $S_1$ will then be $10^{600}$ times the
3026: probability that a universe with parameters in $Y$ will produce an
3027: observer with your memories.\footnote{This probability is (at least
3028: roughly) the same for all universes with parameters in $Y$, since $Y$
3029: is defined to be the region of parameters that can't be ruled out
3030: based on your memories.} On the other hand, the probability that
3031: someone exists with your memories under theory $L$ will be $10^{600}$
3032: times the fraction of valleys in the landscape that produce parameters
3033: in region $Y$ times the probability that a universe with parameters in
3034: $Y$ will produce an observer with your memories. The odds in favour
3035: of theory $L$ will therefore be equal to the fraction of valleys in
3036: the landscape that produce parameters in $Y$.\footnote{It's possible
3037: that theory $L$ defines some non-uniform measure over valleys, in
3038: which case the odds would be the total measure for valleys in region
3039: $Y$ divided by the total measure for all valleys. This elaboration
3040: does not affect the basic argument.} The landscape of string theory
3041: is typically seen as containing valleys with a great diversity of
3042: physical laws, so the odds in favour of $L$ in this scenario would be
3043: tiny --- ie, theory $S_1$ would be very strongly favoured.
3044:
3045: In the second situation, the fundamental parameters for theory $S$ are
3046: unknown. Perhaps, for example, it has been proved that the structure
3047: of theory $S$ (but not theory $L$) must lead to a unique set of
3048: parameters, but their actual values are not known, though mathematical
3049: intuition allows one to give them some broad prior distribution. Or
3050: theory $S$ might just baldly state that the universes that exist have
3051: only a single set of parameter values, but these values are arbitrary,
3052: with some broad prior distribution. I'll use $S_*$ to refer to a
3053: theory $S$ of this type. In this situation, the probability that
3054: someone with your memories exists under $S_*$ is equal to $10^{600}$
3055: times the prior probability of region $Y$ times the probability that
3056: someone with your memories will exist in a universe whose parameters
3057: are in $Y$. The odds in favour of theory $L$ will be equal to the
3058: fraction of valleys that produce parameters in $Y$ according to $L$
3059: divided by the prior probability of $Y$ according to $S$. If the
3060: distribution of parameters of valleys in $L$ is similar in breadth to
3061: the prior for parameters in $S_*$, these odds will be roughly one ---
3062: ie, neither theory will be favoured, since neither gives any very
3063: specific predictions.
3064:
3065: In these arguments, a crucial role is played by the region $Y$, which
3066: encompasses values of the parameters of the Standard Model and of the
3067: cosmological constant that are not ruled out by your memories
3068: (including your memories of scientific measurements). In contrast, it
3069: is irrelevant what region of parameters is compatible with life, or
3070: with intelligent life, or with intelligent life that has developed a
3071: scientific culture. These regions would likely be much bigger than
3072: $Y$, since there is no apparent reason why, for instance, life
3073: couldn't develop in a universe with only half as many galaxies as we
3074: see.
3075:
3076: These applications of FNC accord with usual scientific reasoning. If
3077: theory $S$ makes specific predictions, and these are compatible with
3078: what is observed, it is favoured over theory $L$, since $L$ makes no
3079: specific predictions. If theory $S$ also makes no specific
3080: predictions, either because it has not been sufficiently worked out,
3081: or because it has arbitrary parameters, then neither $S$ nor $L$ are
3082: favoured.
3083:
3084: How is this different from ``anthropic'' reasoning? The crucial point
3085: seems to be that theory $S_1$, whose parameters are known, and match
3086: observations, implies that $10^{600}$ universes much like ours exist.
3087: In contrast, theory $L$ implies that far fewer universes like ours, or
3088: even compatible with life, will exist. (Though it is assumed that
3089: theory $L$ implies the existence of at least one universe with
3090: intelligent life.) If one applied SSA+SIA, the prior probability of
3091: theory $S_1$ would be greatly boosted compared to that of theory $L$,
3092: and the result would be the same as applying FNC. But if one instead
3093: applies SSA$-$SIA, there is no boost for theory $S_1$. The crux of
3094: the ``anthropic'' argument seems to be that one should not penalize
3095: theory $L$ for predicting that only a few habitable universes exist,
3096: as long as it predicts at least one, since we will naturally find
3097: ourselves in a habitable universe, even if they are rare. As a
3098: result, the degree to which theory $S_1$ is favoured over theory $L$
3099: is much reduced.
3100:
3101: A numerical example may clarify the situation. Suppose that the
3102: landscape of theory $L$ has $10^{500}$ valleys, whereas theory $S_1$
3103: has only one valley, whose properties are known. The single valley of
3104: theory $S_1$ is compatible with intelligent life, and furthermore,
3105: with your specific memories. Of the $10^{500}$ valleys of theory $L$,
3106: $10^{10}$ are compatible with intelligent life, and $10^{6}$ of these
3107: are compatible with your specific memories. For simplicity, let's
3108: assume that all universes with intelligent life have the same
3109: population. Application of FNC then gives odds of
3110: $10^{6}/10^{500}\,=\,10^{-494}$ for theory $L$, but the anthropic
3111: reasoning described above, based on SSA$-$SIA, gives odds of
3112: $10^{6}/10^{10}\,=\,10^{-4}$ for $L$. So whereas $L$ is essentially
3113: disproved if FNC is used, it retains a non-negligible probability
3114: under SSA$-$SIA. This result may seem reasonable if you take an
3115: anthropic view, but note the disturbing sensitivity of the odds for
3116: $L$ to the definition of ``intelligent life'', and the need to
3117: determine whether such life exists in universes with $10^{500}$
3118: different physical laws before a conclusion can be reached.
3119:
3120: This situation resembles that discussed in Sections~\ref{sec-density}
3121: and~\ref{sec-density-fnc}, where Marochnik's theory and other theories
3122: in which the density of observers vary were considered. I argued
3123: there that the results of FNC and SSA+SIA are correct using the device
3124: of companion observers. In the context of inflationary cosmology, the
3125: ``companions'' would need to exist in every universe, regardless of
3126: whether it is hospitable to us, even though the physical laws differ
3127: radically from universe to universe. Suppose there are a great many
3128: such observers in every universe (albeit unobserved by us, so far),
3129: and that they know that observers like them exist in every universe.
3130: They will take the existence of humans in this universe as evidence
3131: that many universes have physical laws that allow beings like humans
3132: to exist. Why should we think differently? One might well wonder
3133: whether this scenario is stretching the concept of companion observers
3134: too far, but I see no specific reason for thinking that these
3135: conclusions are inappropriate.
3136:
3137: Susskind does not discuss anthropic reasoning in terms of probabilistic
3138: principles such as SSA$-$SIA, nor in reference to any explicit comparison
3139: of theories. Instead, his focus seems to be on
3140: finding an \textit{explanation} for our universe's physical laws.
3141: In his book, \textit{The Cosmic Landscape}, he describes how he
3142: came to accept use of the Anthropic Principle, beginning with an
3143: account of the many ``coincidences'' that seem necessary for life to
3144: exist:
3145: \bqt\indent
3146: There are multiple ways that things could go wrong with the
3147: nuclear cooking [~of heavy elements~]. \ldots{} But again, it
3148: would do no good for the nuclear physics to be ``just
3149: right'' if the universe had no stars. \ldots{} How then
3150: did the universe get to have such a large preponderance of
3151: matter over antimatter? \ldots{} Another essential requirement
3152: for life is that gravity be extremely weak. \ldots
3153:
3154: Just how seriously should we take this collection of
3155: lucky coincidences? Do they really make a strong case for
3156: some kind of Anthropic Principle? My own feeling is that they
3157: are very impressive, but no so impressive that they would
3158: have pushed me past the tipping point to embrace an
3159: anthropic explanation. \ldots{} accidents, after all, do happen.
3160:
3161: However, the smallness of the cosmological constant is another
3162: matter. To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum
3163: energy zero is most certainly no accident. But it was not
3164: just that the cosmological constant was very small. Had
3165: it been even smaller than it is, had it continued to be zero
3166: to the current level of accuracy, one could have gone on
3167: believing that some unknown mathematical principle would
3168: make it exactly zero. \ldots
3169:
3170: But even the cosmological constant would not have been enough
3171: to tip the balance for me. For me the tipping point came
3172: with the discovery of the huge Landscape that String Theory
3173: appears to be forcing on us. (Susskind 2006, pp.~182-185)
3174: \eqt
3175: I will discuss the cosmological constant in more detail below, but
3176: for now let us count it as just one more ``lucky coincidence''.
3177: The last point above seems crucial. He expands on it later:
3178: \bqt
3179: \ldots{} in my own mind, the ``straw that broke the camel's
3180: back'' was the realization that String Theory was moving
3181: in what seemed to be a perverse direction. Instead of
3182: zeroing in on a single, unique system of physical laws,
3183: it was yielding an ever-expanding collection of Rube
3184: Goldberg concoctions. I felt that the goal of a single
3185: unique string world was an ever-receding mirage and
3186: that the theorists looking for such a unique world were on
3187: a doomed mission. (Susskind 2006, p.~199)
3188: \eqt
3189:
3190: In terms of theories of type $S$ and $L$ discussed above, it appears
3191: that Susskind initially saw string theory as a theory $S_*$, for which
3192: it was believed (though not proven) that the fundamental parameters of
3193: the theory were unique, even though they were unknown. If he had
3194: thought to compare it to some theory $L$ (obviously based on some
3195: different structure), and had applied FNC, he would have concluded
3196: that the two theories were about equally likely, since at that point
3197: neither could make specific predictions. Of course, he would have
3198: hoped to find the unknown unique parameters of $S$, and he would have
3199: hoped that the predictions of theory $S$ with these parameters matched
3200: observations. If both hopes had been fulfilled, application of FNC
3201: would have produced the conclusion that this theory (now of type $S_1$)
3202: was vastly more probable than theory $L$. Perhaps these applications
3203: of FNC approximate the logic Susskind employed at that time.
3204:
3205: After abandoning the quest for a unique set of physical laws, accepting
3206: instead a landscape of possible laws, populated by multiple universes,
3207: Susskind appears to have been concerned with only one competing theory
3208: --- that the particular laws we see were chosen by an Intelligent
3209: Designer, with the purpose of creating a universe containing life. It
3210: is this alternative that his anthropic arguments appear aimed at
3211: refuting, or at least rendering unnecessary. In his book, which is
3212: subtitled ``The Illusion of Intelligent Design'', he writes:
3213: \bqt\indent
3214: To Victor's [~a friend's~] question, ``Was it not God's
3215: infinite kindness and love that permitted our existence?''
3216: I would have to answer with Laplace's reply to Napol\'{e}on:
3217: ``I have no need of this hypothesis.''\ \ \textit{The Cosmic
3218: Landscape} is my \mbox{answer}\ldots{} (Susskind 2006, p.~15)
3219: \eqt
3220:
3221: Obtaining this answer doesn't require anthropic reasoning, however.
3222: Intelligent Design can be seen as a theory $S_*$ in which all
3223: universes operate by a single set of physical laws that are fixed to
3224: arbitrarily values by the Designer. Supposing we have some broad
3225: prior distribution for the parameters of these physical laws, we find
3226: that the theory makes no specific predictions. Application of FNC
3227: leads to the conclusion that this theory and theory $L$ are about
3228: equally likely. There is ``no need'' for the hypothesis of an
3229: Intelligent Designer.
3230:
3231: An advocate of Intelligent Design might, of course, maintain that a
3232: broad prior is not appropriate --- that the prior should be confined
3233: to physical laws that will produce a universe containing intelligent
3234: life. I'll call this theory $S_D$. If you consider $S_D$ and $L$
3235: equally likely \textit{a~priori}, FNC will lead you to conclude that
3236: theory $S_D$ is much more probable than theory $L$ --- extending the
3237: numerical example above, theory $S_D$ will predict that the universe
3238: has one of the $10^{10}$ sets of laws that are compatible with
3239: intelligent life, of which $10^{6}$ are compatible with your
3240: observations, so the odds in favour of $L$ will be
3241: $(10^{6}/10^{500})\,/\,(10^{6}/10^{10})\ =\ 10^{-490}$. But why
3242: should one think the Designer wished intelligent life to exist, as one
3243: must to regard $S_D$ as plausible? Some may think this, but an
3244: argument that has as a premise God's infinite kindness and love for
3245: humanity is not a scientific argument, and requires no scientific
3246: refutation.
3247:
3248: Nevertheless, if one wishes a counter-argument, anthropic reasoning
3249: may appear to provide one. Applying SSA$-$SIA will make the theories
3250: of the landscape ($L$) and of an Intelligent Designer who likes
3251: intelligent life ($S_D$) equally likely. Of the $10^{500}$ valleys in
3252: theory $L$, only the $10^{10}$ with intelligent life ``count'' when
3253: applying SSA$-$SIA, so the probability of a universe compatible with
3254: what you observe is $10^{6}/10^{10}$, the same as for theory $S_D$.
3255:
3256: I have argued in this paper that SSA$-$SIA is not a valid principle of
3257: reasoning. If so, one would expect Susskind's approach to produce
3258: strange results in other contexts. Consider a comparison of
3259: Susskind's theory $L$, in which there is a landscape of $10^{500}$
3260: possible physical laws, with a theory $S_*$ that other string
3261: theorists may still be working on, in which it is thought that only
3262: one of these $10^{500}$ apparent possibilities is mathematically
3263: consistent, though it is not known which of the $10^{500}$ it is. As
3264: discussed above, applying FNC leads to the conclusion that $S_*$ and
3265: $L$ are equally likely. What is the result of applying SSA$-$SIA?
3266:
3267: SSA$-$SIA will strongly favour theory $L$. In the numerical example
3268: above, theory $L$ would predict a universe compatible with what you
3269: see with probability $10^6/10^{10}\, =\, 10^{-4}$, since of the
3270: $10^{10}$ valleys in the landscape that allow intelligent life, $10^6$
3271: are compatible with your observations. The corresponding probability
3272: under theory $S_*$ is only $10^6/10^{500}\, =\, 10^{-494}$, so it is
3273: very strongly disfavoured, with the odds in favour of $L$ being
3274: $10^{-4}/10^{-494}\,=\,10^{490}$. Another way of looking at this
3275: problem is to split theory $S_*$ into theories
3276: $S^1,\,S^2,\,\ldots,\,S^{10^{500}}$, one for each possible set of
3277: physical laws, and split the prior probability of $1/2$ for $S_*$ into
3278: prior probabilities of $0.5\times10^{-500}$ for each of these
3279: theories. All but $10^6$ of these theories are incompatible with your
3280: observations. The total posterior probability of all the sub-theories
3281: of $S_*$ that are compatible with what you see works out to
3282: $10^6\times0.5\times10^{-500}\ /\ (10^6\times0.5\times10^{-500}\ +\
3283: 0.5\times10^{-4})\ \approx\ 10^{-490}$.
3284:
3285: This seems unreasonable. Perhaps there are good reasons to think that
3286: the old research programme of looking for unique physical laws within
3287: string theory has poor prospects, but until it is actually proved
3288: hopeless, its chances of success are surely not as low as $10^{-490}$.
3289: Susskind does not explicitly draw such a pessimistic conclusion, but
3290: it seems to follow from the logic of anthropic reasoning that he uses.
3291:
3292: Susskind does draw an even more surprising conclusion from the
3293: anthropic viewpoint. Discussing the idea that the laws of physics
3294: might be an emergent phenomenon, of the sort that is well-known in
3295: condensed-matter physics, he writes:
3296: \bqt
3297: The properties of emergent systems are not very flexible.
3298: There may be an enormous variety of starting points for the
3299: microscopic behavior of atoms, but\ldots{} they tend to lead
3300: to a very small number of large-scale endpoints. \ldots{}
3301: This insensitivity to the microscopic starting point is the
3302: thing that condensed-matter physicists like best about
3303: emergent systems. But the probability that out of the small
3304: number of possible fixed points (endpoints) there should be
3305: one with the incredibly fine-tuned properties of our anthropic
3306: world is negligible. \ldots{} A universe based on conventional
3307: condensed-matter emergence seems to me to be a dead-end idea.
3308: (Susskind 2006, pp.~359-360)
3309: \eqt
3310: This comment is remarkable. An inflexible theory leading to only a
3311: small number of possible sets of physical laws (preferably just one)
3312: is what Susskind had originally hoped string theory would be! Yet now
3313: he sees such a theory as being almost certainly false, not (just)
3314: because of detailed problems with it, but because of the very
3315: inflexibility, leading to near uniqueness, that he previously saw as
3316: one of the most attractive features of string theory. Moreover, even
3317: application of SSA$-$SIA does not lead to this theory being greatly
3318: disfavoured, if the details have not been worked out that would show
3319: what the small number of possibilities actually predict.
3320: Rather than $10^{500}$ sub-theories as in the example above, there are only,
3321: say, 10 sub-theories, each of which has a substantial portion of the
3322: prior probability for the theory as a whole.
3323: The low probability Susskind assigns to this theory can only come from
3324: his assigning a low \textit{prior} probability to the whole theory,
3325: based on a prior belief that physical laws do not
3326: have any simple explanation, but are instead a ``Rube Goldberg concoction''.
3327:
3328: Such a belief is, of course, contradicted by numerous scientific
3329: success stories, such as the use of quantum mechanics to explain the
3330: complex features of atomic spectra. However, some other complex
3331: phenomena do seem to have no explanation other than accident --- the
3332: outlines of the continents, for example, have no fundamental
3333: geological explanation. Whether a phenomenon has a simple explanation
3334: or not cannot be determined \textit{a~priori}. Perhaps a multiplicity
3335: of universes with differing physical laws exist; perhaps the set of
3336: possible physical laws is much more constrained. One can tell which
3337: only by creating and testing theories of both sorts.
3338:
3339: Anthropic reasoning has also been criticized by Smolin (2006), who has
3340: in addition proposed a third possibility --- universes with a great
3341: diversity of physical laws can indeed exist, but rather than the
3342: physical laws of each universe being chosen at random from some simple
3343: distribution, they are chosen according to some dynamical process,
3344: which leads to a distribution of universes in which the physical laws
3345: we actually observe are much more likely. He proposes a particular
3346: theory of ``cosmic natural selection'', based on the idea that new
3347: universes are formed inside black holes, with slightly perturbed
3348: physical laws. Selection will then tend to favour physical laws that
3349: make a universe produce many black holes. Smolin argues that such a
3350: universe will resemble ours.
3351:
3352: A successful theory of this sort would be greatly favoured by FNC, in
3353: comparison with a theory that distributes universes uniformly over
3354: valleys of the landscape, since it would (if successful) greatly
3355: increase the probability of a universe similar to ours (in the region
3356: $Y$ defined earlier), and hence also the probability that someone with
3357: your memories will exist. In contrast, such a theory might not be
3358: favoured at all by SSA$-$SIA. Universes without intelligent life
3359: ``don't count'' with SSA$-$SIA, so if Smolin's theory (for example)
3360: leads to many more universes that contain intelligent life, but fails
3361: to further concentrate the distribution towards universes more
3362: precisely like ours, it will not be considered more probable by
3363: SSA$-$SIA than a theory in which the physical laws for each universe
3364: are drawn from a much broader distribution.
3365:
3366: As promised above, I will now consider in more detail the issue of the
3367: cosmological constant, which is usually denoted by $\Lambda$. As seen
3368: from the quote above, Susskind considers the observed small, but
3369: non-zero, value for $\Lambda$ to be the strongest of the
3370: ``coincidences'' that led him to consider anthropic explanations. Two
3371: separate aspects of the situation seem responsible for this --- the
3372: large magnitude of the coincidence, and the special role of the value
3373: zero.
3374:
3375: The range of values for $\Lambda$ that are compatible with life (taken
3376: to be the range for which galaxies form) is much narrower than the
3377: range of values that seem plausible on general theoretical grounds, by
3378: a factor of roughly $10^{120}$. This ratio of prior range to
3379: ``anthropic'' range (for which life can exist) is substantially
3380: greater than for the other parameters of the Standard Model that seem
3381: to be ``fine-tuned'' for life. Someone who accepts the basic
3382: anthropic argument (based, so far as I can tell, on SSA$-$SIA) will
3383: naturally be impressed by this. As I argue above, however,
3384: application of FNC does not lead one to favour a theory based on the
3385: landscape for this reason, so the magnitude of the coincidence is
3386: irrelevant.
3387:
3388: Does the fact that the observed value of $\Lambda$ is close to zero,
3389: but not exactly zero, modify this conclusion? Consider some other
3390: parameter, for which the range of conceivable values is $(0,1)$ and
3391: the range of values compatible with life is $(0.3181,0.3192)$. The
3392: best measurement of this parameter gives the 95\% confidence interval
3393: $(0.3185,0.3187)$. Suppose you consider an anthropic explanation for
3394: the value of this parameter to be attractive. Someone now advances a
3395: plausible theory that the true value is exactly $1/\pi=0.3183\ldots$,
3396: which is somewhat at variance with the measurement, but not hopelessly
3397: so. After learning of this theory, should your confidence in an
3398: anthropic explanation be greater or less than before? Surely you
3399: should be less confident, since it's possible that this new theory
3400: provides the true explanation. Certainly you shouldn't be
3401: \textit{more} confident in an anthropic explanation now that before.
3402:
3403: Analogously, the fact that the anthropic range for the cosmological
3404: constant includes the special value zero, which one might imagine
3405: could result from some theoretical constraint enforcing cancellation
3406: of terms, does \textit{not} make an anthropic explanation more likely,
3407: but rather the reverse. This is partly because of the possibility
3408: that $\Lambda$ is indeed exactly zero, even though current
3409: observations indicate otherwise. More likely, however, is that some
3410: theory might explain why $\Lambda$ is close to, but not exactly, zero.
3411:
3412: Even if no good non-anthropic explanation for $\Lambda$ being near
3413: zero can be found, the anthropic explanation may have its own problem
3414: --- why is the special value zero contained in the rather narrow
3415: anthropic range (about $10^2$ wide compared with a prior range of
3416: $10^{120}$)? The anthropic range of $\Lambda$ is a function of the
3417: \textit{other} parameters of the physical laws. Why should these
3418: other parameters conspire to make this range contain zero? Perhaps
3419: there is some plausible cosmological explanation, valid even when the
3420: set of particles is much different from what we observe, but I have
3421: not seen the issue discussed.
3422:
3423: To summarize, at least the following seem possible explanations for the
3424: value of $\Lambda$:\vspace{-6pt}
3425: \begin{itemize}
3426: \item[1)] $\Lambda$ must be exactly zero, for theoretical reasons.
3427: \item[2)] $\Lambda$ has a specific value that is close to but not equal to
3428: zero, for theoretical reasons.
3429: \item[3)] $\Lambda$ has a value that is not completely determined theoretically,
3430: but which theory says is likely to be close to zero.
3431: \item[4)] $\Lambda$ takes on various values in different valleys of
3432: the landscape. A non-negligible fraction of these
3433: values are close to zero, with the others being widely distributed.
3434: \item[5)] $\Lambda$ takes on various values in different valleys of
3435: the landscape, with no tendency for these values to be close to
3436: zero.\vspace{-6pt}
3437: \end{itemize}
3438: Explanation~(1) is viable only if current observations are in error.
3439: A theory of the sort required for explanation~(2) would seem on
3440: general grounds to be conceivable --- reasons for something to be zero
3441: often can be modified to produced reasons for something to be near
3442: zero. Explanations~(3) and~(4) are not entirely distinct. Smolin's
3443: cosmic natural selection theory (Smolin 2006) and a recent cyclic
3444: model of the universe due to Steinhardt and Turok (2006) provide
3445: explanations of this type. Explanation~(5) provides a reason to think
3446: that a small value of $\Lambda$ is possible, but explains why we see
3447: such a rare value only if you accept anthropic explanations.
3448:
3449: Arguments in favour of an anthropic explanation for the cosmological
3450: constant seem to generally dismiss explanations~(1) to~(4), though
3451: Weinberg (2000) remarks that an \textit{a priori} distribution for
3452: $\Lambda$ with a peak near zero would obviate anthropic explanations.
3453: If only explanation~(5) is considered, however, anthropic reasoning
3454: does no actual work, but just makes one feel more comfortable. The
3455: real question is whether the Anthropic Principle provides good reason
3456: to increase the probability of explanation~(5) compared to the others.
3457: The effect of applying SSA$-$SIA, as discussed earlier, is to let a
3458: theory predict many lifeless universes (eg, with $\Lambda \gg 0$)
3459: without penalty, as long as it predicts at least one universe with
3460: intelligent life. In contrast, when FNC is applied, explanation~(5)
3461: is heavily penalized compared to an otherwise plausible theory that
3462: provides an explanation of type~(1) to~(4). (This assumes that all
3463: theories produces a similar collection of universes --- if not, we get
3464: into the difficult problem (discussed in Section~\ref{sec-varsize}) of
3465: comparing theories that differ in the size or multiplicity of
3466: universes.)
3467:
3468: My conclusion is that when FNC can be clearly applied, it does not
3469: support the type of anthropic reasoning that has been used to
3470: ``explain'' the apparent fine-tuning of physical constants to values
3471: necessary for life, via a multitude of universes populating a
3472: landscape of physical laws. Such anthropic reasoning appears to be
3473: based on SSA$-$SIA, and shares with it a disturbing sensitivity to the
3474: reference class chosen. Moreover, SSA$-$SIA, in both this application
3475: and its applications to the problems discussed previously, can produce
3476: counterintuitive conclusions. When the universe is truly infinite,
3477: and especially when different theories predict universes of different
3478: sizes, some more general version of FNC is needed. However, I see no
3479: reason at present to think that my conclusions regarding anthropic
3480: reasoning would be invalid in these situations.
3481:
3482: None of this says that a cosmology with multiple universes populating
3483: a landscape of physical laws cannot be correct. FNC does give a
3484: preference to theories of this sort in which the distribution of
3485: universes is concentrated on valleys in the landscape that produce the
3486: physical laws we see, but perhaps no such theory is viable. Many
3487: ordinary phenomena, such as the outlines of the continents and the
3488: radii of the orbits of the planets, are believed to have no
3489: explanation other than accident. On cannot rule out \textit{a priori}
3490: the possibility that the cosmological constant and the parameters of
3491: the Standard Model have only this explanation, since this might be the
3492: truth. Such an explanation is, however, a ``last resort'', in that
3493: any theory that more specifically predicts the observered values, and
3494: is otherwise acceptable, should be greatly preferred.
3495:
3496:
3497: \section*{Acknowledgements}\vspace{-10pt}
3498:
3499: I thank David MacKay for helpful discussions. This research was
3500: supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
3501: Canada. I hold a Canada Research Chair in Statistics and Machine
3502: Learning.
3503:
3504:
3505: \section*{References}\vspace*{-10pt}
3506:
3507: \leftmargini 0.2in
3508: \labelsep 0in
3509:
3510: \begin{description}
3511: \itemsep 2pt
3512:
3513: \item[] Bostrom, N.\ (2002) \textit{Anthropic Bias:\ \ Observation
3514: Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy}, New York: Routledge.
3515:
3516: \item[] Bostrom, N.\ (2006) ``Sleeping Beauty and self-location: A
3517: hybrid model'', preprint available from \texttt{http://www.nickbostrom.com},
3518: to appear in \textit{Synthese}.
3519:
3520: \item[] Bostrom, N.\ and \'{C}irkovi\'{c}, M.~M.\ (2003)
3521: ``The doomsday argument and the self-indication assumption: reply to
3522: Olum'', \textit{The Philosophical Quarterly},
3523: vol.~53, pp.~83-91.
3524:
3525: \item[] Brin, D.\ (1983) ``The `Great Silence': The controversy
3526: concerning extraterrestrial life'', \textit{Quarterly Journal of
3527: the Royal Astronomical Society}, vol.~24, pp.~283-309.
3528:
3529: \item[] Carter, B.\ (1974) ``Large number coincidences and the
3530: Anthropic Principle in cosmology'', in M.~S.~Longair (editor),
3531: \textit{Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Data},
3532: Dordrecht: Reidel, pp.~291-298.
3533:
3534: \item[] Carter, B.\ (2004) ``Anthropic principle in cosmology'',
3535: available from the e-print archive at
3536: \texttt{http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606117}.
3537:
3538: \item[] Elga, A.\ (2000) ``Self-locating belief and the Sleeping
3539: Beauty problem'', \textit{Analysis}, vol.~60, pp.~143-147.
3540:
3541: \item[] Gott, J.~R.\ (1993) ``Implications of the Copernican Principle for
3542: our future prospects'', \textit{Nature}, vol.~363, pp.~315-319.
3543:
3544: \item[] Hanson, R.\ (1998) ``Burning the cosmic commons: Evolutionary
3545: strategies of interstellar colonization'', available from
3546: \texttt{http://hanson.gmu.edu}.
3547:
3548: \item[] Hanson, R.\ (2006) ``Uncommon priors require origin disputes'',
3549: to appear in \textit{Theory and Decision}, available from
3550: \texttt{http://hanson.gmu.edu}.
3551:
3552: \item[] Harnad, S.\ (2001) ``What's wrong and right about Searle's Chinese
3553: Room Argument?'' in: M.~Bishop and J.~Preston (editors) \textit{Essays on
3554: Searle's Chinese Room Argument}, Oxford University Press. Also
3555: available at \texttt{http://cogprints.org/4023/01/searlbook.htm}.
3556:
3557: \item[] Knobe, J., Olum, K.~D., and Vilenkin, A.\ (2006) ``Philosophical
3558: implications of inflationary cosmology'', \textit{British Journal for the
3559: Philosophy of Science}, vol.~57, pp.~47-67.
3560:
3561: \item[] Lewis, D.\ (1979) ``Attitudes \textit{de dicto} and \textit{de se}'',
3562: \textit{The Philosophical Review}, Vol.~88, pp.~513-543.
3563:
3564: \item[] Lewis, D.\ (2001) ``Sleeping Beauty:\ reply to Elga'',
3565: \textit{Analysis}, vol.~61, pp.~171-176.
3566:
3567: \item[] Leslie, J.\ (1996) \textit{The End of the World: The Science
3568: and Ethics of Human Extinction}, London: Routledge.
3569:
3570: \item[] Marochnik, L.~S.\ (1983) ``On the origin of the solar system
3571: and the exceptional position of the sun in the galaxy'', \textit{Astrophysics
3572: and Space Science}, vol.~89, pp.~71-75.
3573:
3574: \item[] Nozick (1969) ``Newcomb's problem and two principles of choice'',
3575: in N.~Rescher (editor) \textit{Essays in Honor of Carl G.~Hempel},
3576: Boston: Reidel, pp.~115-146.
3577:
3578: \item[] Olum, K.~D.\ (2002) ``The doomsday argument and the number
3579: of possible observers'', \textit{The Philosophical Quarterly},
3580: vol.~52, pp.~164-184.
3581:
3582: \item[] Olum, K.~D.\ (2004) ``Conflict between anthropic reasoning and
3583: observation'', \textit{Analysis}, vol.~64, pp.~1-8.
3584:
3585: \item[] Smolin, L.\ (2006) ``Scientific alternatives to the anthropic
3586: principle'' (version 3, May 2006), available from the e-print archive at
3587: \texttt{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0407213} (first version
3588: posted July 2004).
3589:
3590: \item[] Steinhardt, P.~J.\ and Turok, N.\ (2006) ``Why the cosmological
3591: constant is small and positive'', \textit{Science}, vol.~312, pp.~1180-1183.
3592:
3593: \item[] Susskind, L.\ (2003) ``The anthropic landscape of string theory'',
3594: available from the e-print archive at
3595: {\texttt{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0302219}}.
3596:
3597: \item[] Susskind, L.\ (2006) \textit{The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory
3598: and the Illusion of Intelligent Design}, New York: Little, Brown,
3599: and Company.
3600:
3601: \item[] Weinberg, S.\ (1987) ``Anthropic bound on the cosmological constant'',
3602: \textit{Physical Review Letters}, vol.~59, pp.~2607-2610.
3603:
3604: \item[] Weinberg, S.\ (2000) ``\textit{A priori} probability distribution
3605: of the cosmological constant'', \textit{Physical Review D}, vol.~61,
3606: 103505 (4 pages).
3607:
3608: \item[] Whitman, W.~B., Coleman, D.~C., and Wiebe, W.~J.\ (1998)
3609: ``Prokaryotes: The unseen majority'', \textit{Proceedings of the
3610: National Academy of Sciences (USA)}, vol.~95, pp.~6578-6583.
3611:
3612: \end{description}
3613:
3614: \end{document}
3615: