@dirtypoolfilms @billybatsonwhiz @stevendeknight They most definitely are having the impact I’m claiming they have. 40.6% of costs associated with building multi family homes is due to government regulations. The leading category of cost % (11.1%) is due to the code changes over the past ten years: https://t.co/Q9IJLb6KYO

but I don’t think that helps SIA, I think it undermines it. It appeals to all of the evidence I currently have, not just whether more consciousness existing in general makes my specific conscious existence more likely.

After all, if there really are people that are truly indistinguishable from me, then I am multiple people. I really should increase my credence in a possible world where I specifically exist more often in more places and throughout more time,

Now I may be wrong, but it appears another formulation of SIA says to boost probability for theories based on the number of people indistinguishable from you, that exist. However, that appears to simply be the same as the alternative that has just been raised.

The correct alternative appears to be a theory that boosts probability of theories that explain everything I am experiencing now (ie the latter world). I would say this theory is better than SSA and CC for reasons, but you have exhausted the errors in those quite enough already.

This world—with infinite of them—is boosted dramatically, though, compared with a highly improbable (according to SIA) world where only 1 someone exists, but that someone has experiences exactly like the ones I am having now.

(I’m sure you have responses to this stuff but here goes anyways) This has a problem in my view where the someones can be multiplied and stretched so far thin that they are fleeting blips of awareness that only experience something like static colors, very unlike my experience.

to all the time. I appreciate your responses that you have given me nonetheless! Anyways, with SIA it appears your main formulation revolves around the typical broad approach giving boosts to theories that would accommodate evidence of someone existing.

However, I do not have the time quite yet to practice philosophy/read literature/think through arguments and possible objections to them to help determine what is correct. Instead I will continue to attempt small bits back and forth with you that I do not expect you to reply

In what alternative does a man who is killed by eating rotten meat that was sold to him, have recourse?

You can’t see mental states. Mental states exist.

Who regulates the food safety regulators?

There exists a non-zero probability that everyone is a perfect being.

Mother Teresa and Ted Bundy have existed on the same planet.

Billionaires produce more human welfare than nearly anyone else

It’s crazy to discount the morality of profits

I am an ancap who believes we should raise the welfare of everyone in the most efficient ways possible. This includes housing the homeless to an extent by decreasing building regulations and allowing more homes to be built. More homes = more affordability.

This seems to assume one supports taxation. Which I have yet to hear an ancap support.

You do not have a right to other people’s property

Wait - are scientists trying to plagiarize Plato now? Except for the undetermined part; why does Schrödinger always get accused of believing the cat could actually be both dead and alive at the same time until observed? He was pointing out a flaw in the theory!

Now this is actually plausible