Reasoning about the Future: Doom and Beauty [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 156 (3):427 - 439 (2007)
According to the Doomsday Argument we have to rethink the probabilities we assign to a soon or not so soon extinction of mankind when we realize that we are living now, rather early in the history of mankind. Sleeping Beauty finds herself in a similar predicament: on learning the date of her first awakening, she is asked to re-evaluate the probabilities of her two possible future scenarios. In connection with Doom, I argue that it is wrong to assume that our ordinary probability judgements do not already reflect our place in history: we justify the predictive use we make of the probabilities yielded by science (or other sources of information) by our knowledge of the fact that we live now, a certain time before the possible occurrence of the events the probabilities refer to. Our degrees of belief should change drastically when we forget the date—importantly, this follows without invoking the "Self Indication Assumption". Subsequent conditionalization on information about which year it is cancels this probability shift again. The Doomsday Argument is about such probability shifts, but tells us nothing about the concrete values of the probabilities—for these, experience provides the only basis. Essentially the same analysis applies to the Sleeping Beauty problem. I argue that Sleeping Beauty "thirders" should be committed to thinking that the Doomsday Argument is ineffective; whereas "halfers" should agree that doom is imminent—but they are wrong
|Keywords||Doomsday Sleeping Beauty Bayes Probability updating|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
N. Bostrom (1999). The Doomsday Argument is Alive and Kicking. Mind 108 (431):539-551.
Nick Bostrom (2002). Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy. Routledge.
Nick Bostrom (2001). The Doomsday Argument Adam & Eve, UN++, and Quantum Joe. Synthese 127 (3):359 - 387.
Nick Bostrom & Milan M. Cirković (2003). The Doomsday Argument and the Self–Indication Assumption: Reply to Olum. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (210):83–91.
Dennis Dieks (1992). Doomsday--Or: The Dangers of Statistics. Philosophical Quarterly 42 (166):78-84.
Citations of this work BETA
Darren Bradley (2011). Self-Location is No Problem for Conditionalization. Synthese 182 (3):393-411.
David Papineau & Víctor Durà-Vilà (2009). A Thirder and an Everettian: A Reply to Lewis's 'Quantum Sleeping Beauty'. Analysis 69 (1):78-86.
Peter J. Lewis (2010). A Note on the Doomsday Argument. Analysis 70 (1):27-30.
Chris Smeenk (forthcoming). Predictability Crisis in Early Universe Cosmology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics.
Similar books and articles
Peter J. Lewis (2010). Credence and Self-Location. Synthese 175 (3):369-382.
Paul Bartha & Christopher Hitchcock (1999). No One Knows the Date or the Hour: An Unorthodox Application of Rev. Bayes's Theorem. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):353.
Karl Karlander & Levi Spectre (2010). Sleeping Beauty Meets Monday. Synthese 174 (3):397 - 412.
Terry Horgan & Anna Mahtani (2013). Generalized Conditionalization and the Sleeping Beauty Problem. Erkenntnis 78 (2):333-351.
Joel Pust (2011). Sleeping Beauty and Direct Inference. Analysis 71 (2):290-293.
Dennis Dieks (2007). Reasoning About the Future: Doom and Beauty. [REVIEW] Synthese 156 (3):427 - 439.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #96,369 of 1,096,272 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #84,313 of 1,096,272 )
How can I increase my downloads?