Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The ur-probability solution to the fine-tuning argument successfully evades the anthropic objection

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sober's observation selection effect objection applies to any likelihood formulation that treats 'we exist' as confirmatory evidence, including ur-probability reformulations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kotzen and Strevens demonstrate that conditionalization on existence is formally equivalent to treating existence as background regardless of how the likelihood ratio is framed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the ur-probability reframing is a notational variant of the anthropic framework it claims to transcend, not a genuine evasion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The ur-probability approach requires assigning probabilities to hypotheses before any self-locating beliefs, but Elga and Lewis show self-location cannot be cleanly separated from ordinary belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If self-locating uncertainty is ineliminable from prior probability assignments, the ur-prior already smuggles in anthropic assumptions, making the claimed evasion circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The ur-probability approach treats our existence as evidence taken into account by Bayesian conditioning rather than as background knowledge
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The appropriate likelihood comparison under this approach is not Sober's OSE (which includes 'We exist' as background) but rather alternative likelihood ratios that do not presuppose our existence
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Both alternative likelihood formulations evade the anthropic objection
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.