An Argument for the Non-Arbitrary Existence Hypothesis using Anthropic Reasoning

TL;DR

This paper employs anthropic reasoning to support the Non-Arbitrary Existence Hypothesis, demonstrating that combining it with Nick Bostrom's Self-Sampling Assumption yields the most plausible outcomes across various thought experiments.

Contribution

It introduces the integration of the Non-Arbitrary Existence Hypothesis with SSA and compares it to other assumptions, showing its superiority in anthropic reasoning contexts.

Findings

SSA with NAEH aligns best with thought experiments

Other assumptions like SIA are less plausible in this context

Principles not considered may be less plausible

Abstract

This paper uses anthropic reasoning to argue for the Non-Arbitrary Existence Hypothesis (NAEH). Nick Bostrom's Self-Sampling Assumption (SSA) combined with NAEH is compared against SSA without such an assumption and also SSA with the Self-Indication Assumption (SIA). When considered in the light of various thought experiments, including the Incubator Gedanken, the Doomsday Argument, the Presumptuous Philosopher and Bostrom's Adam and Eve thought experiments, SSA with NAEH is found to give the most plausible results. The possibility of principles not explicitly considered in the paper being superior also is discussed but found to have limited plausibility.