I enjoyed The Accidental Universe, much of which dealt with the anthropic principle -- though not in nearly as much depth. As an aside, can any of you tell me why I've heard of Scott Aaronson, other than perhaps having read his website before? I can't remember. His Wikipedia page didn't help. Anyway, badge for pure fascination. What a great read this is. I think if I badge it the probability that more hubski users will click rises. -- I enjoyed going over the doomsday argument in my mind. However, I think it is significant that the probability of snake eyes at any given iteration of dice rolls is quite small -- less than 3 percent. As one of the commenters points out (and as Scott acknowledges), assuming infinite or finite people/rolls/population/etc changes things. Hmm. More thinking to come. I am inclined toward SIA -- existence as evidence.
Wow, thanks for the badge and the book recommendation. I've been (passively) looking for a good arrow of time exploration, and it seems like The Accidental Universe might have one. I'm not sure where you would have heard of Scott Aaronson, I had previously enjoyed his "Who Can Name the Bigger Number", but didn't make the connection until reading his Wikipedia page. Perhaps you're thinking of Scott Adams? I think that's why his name seems so familiar to me. -- I think wasoxygen had a point about the dice room only seeming paradoxical due to the ill-defined infinities involved. I can't come up with a finite game with the same principles that seems counter-intuitive. A commenter in the article wasoxygen linked mentioned the problem is similar to the roulette strategy where you keep doubling your bet until you win. Even if these do all boil down to imprecise language, I've really enjoyed playing with the ideas.
I am not thinking of Scott Adams. I used to have a high opinion of Scott Adams and now I don't. I like the roulette take, and the concept of an immortal making a bet with each person who enters the doomsday room. There are many fascinating ways to think about this.
It's strange to me that God's Debris would have lowered your opinion of Scott. Much of the criticism in that thread seemed based around flaws in Avatar's assertions/logic, which I thought was sort of the point.
I'm only a third of the way through, but he seems to just be giving a brief introduction to a philosophical concept he finds interesting, and then providing a simple "answer" to seed thought. My main complaint so far is that I'm already familiar with most of the concepts he brings up, and I'm not finding many of the seed answers novel or compelling. However, I would have loved this 5-10 years ago. I've enjoyed thinking about these concepts as I've come across them. It doesn't really seem like Scott's fault that I'm no longer in the target audience.The central character states a number of scientific “facts.” Some of his weirdest statements are consistent with what scientists generally believe. Some of what he says is creative baloney designed to sound true. See if you can tell the difference.