Sometimes, when proposing or pondering upon some outlandish idea, mostly relegated to the realms of sci-fi, but at times much more unfortunately to futurology or basic physics, fans of science argue to probability. Not statistics, but feeling - they just ask themselves which scenario sounds the most likely. Or they attempt to guess the probability, once again, not based upon empiricism, anecdote, or statistical evidence, but abstract mathematical models, faulty analogies, or loaded thought experiments.
“If a simulated world could simulate other worlds, it would be much more likely that we live in a simulation, than in reality.”
“If we had quantum immortality, I would likely be much older, as my lifespan would likely last very long.”
“If there were aliens in the outer space, it’s likely that they developed a spacefaring civilization long ago, and contacted us by now.”
This post is not a commentary on the actual likelihood of these sci-fi ideas, but on the faulty reasoning employed to argue for or against them. In fact, these sentences contain no reasoning at all, as previously explained. If someone, when discussing a hypothetical, resorts to probability in this manner, it means that he has stopped arguing and reasoning altogether.
Let me compare this situation to solving a sudoku puzzle. Suppose that a square from which the digit 7 is missing, has three free spots on the leftmost column, one free spot on the rightmost column, and its middle column is aligned with one on the greater grid where 7 is already present. If we wanted to guess the destined position of 7 in this square, it would seem three times as likely to be in the left column. If we decide to make that guess, perhaps it will help us solve the grid quickly, or perhaps it will ruin the whole attempt. That is because sudoku puzzles, like reality, are not governed by likelihoods. To solve it, we need to look elsewhere in the grid, and fill in other digits until only one position of 7 can be decided. If the puzzle is excessively difficult, we can make a guess, but that is an act of desperation - same as the guesswork of the science enthusiasts. Obviously, a model of a natural process is something much more complex than just a grid of numbers, but that just means that guesswork is much more likely to lead us astray.
This is a very interesting combination of fallacies, but it is one that’s extremely pervasive, and for some unfortunate individuals, one which governs their life choices, and what they choose to believe. They choose to believe what is possible (even if unlikely), and disregard what is evident. These fallacies are almost nonexistent in the Gaedean physics, unless one starts with extremely bizarre assumptions.