Doomsday, Bishop Ussher and simulated worlds

A. M. Richmond

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9329.2008.00395.x

Doomsday, Bishop Ussher and simulated worlds

A. M. Richmond

School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

This paper attempts three tasks in relation to Carter and Leslie's Doomsday Argument. First, it criticises Timothy Chambers' ‘Ussherian Corollary’, a striking but unsuccessful objection to standard Doomsday arguments. Second, it reformulates the Ussherian Corollary as an objection to Bradley Monton's variant Doomsday and Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument. Finally, it tries to diagnose the epistemic/metaphysical problems facing Doomsday-related arguments.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	201-217
Number of pages	17
Journal	Ratio: An international journal of analytic philosophy
Volume	21
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9329.2008.00395.x
Publication status	Published - Jun 2008

Access to Document

10.1111/j.1467-9329.2008.00395.x

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9329.2008.00395.x/abstract

Cite this

@article{3b3615a9353f43bbb33bbc85c27f62c4,

title = "Doomsday, Bishop Ussher and simulated worlds",

abstract = "This paper attempts three tasks in relation to Carter and Leslie's Doomsday Argument. First, it criticises Timothy Chambers' {\textquoteleft}Ussherian Corollary{\textquoteright}, a striking but unsuccessful objection to standard Doomsday arguments. Second, it reformulates the Ussherian Corollary as an objection to Bradley Monton's variant Doomsday and Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument. Finally, it tries to diagnose the epistemic/metaphysical problems facing Doomsday-related arguments.",

author = "Richmond, {A. M.}",

year = "2008",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1111/j.1467-9329.2008.00395.x",

language = "English",

volume = "21",

pages = "201--217",

journal = "Ratio: An international journal of analytic philosophy",

issn = "1467-9329",

publisher = "Wiley",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Doomsday, Bishop Ussher and simulated worlds

AU - Richmond, A. M.

PY - 2008/6

Y1 - 2008/6

N2 - This paper attempts three tasks in relation to Carter and Leslie's Doomsday Argument. First, it criticises Timothy Chambers' ‘Ussherian Corollary’, a striking but unsuccessful objection to standard Doomsday arguments. Second, it reformulates the Ussherian Corollary as an objection to Bradley Monton's variant Doomsday and Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument. Finally, it tries to diagnose the epistemic/metaphysical problems facing Doomsday-related arguments.

AB - This paper attempts three tasks in relation to Carter and Leslie's Doomsday Argument. First, it criticises Timothy Chambers' ‘Ussherian Corollary’, a striking but unsuccessful objection to standard Doomsday arguments. Second, it reformulates the Ussherian Corollary as an objection to Bradley Monton's variant Doomsday and Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument. Finally, it tries to diagnose the epistemic/metaphysical problems facing Doomsday-related arguments.

U2 - 10.1111/j.1467-9329.2008.00395.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1467-9329.2008.00395.x

M3 - Article

SN - 1467-9329

VL - 21

SP - 201

EP - 217

JO - Ratio: An international journal of analytic philosophy

JF - Ratio: An international journal of analytic philosophy

IS - 2

ER -

Doomsday, Bishop Ussher and simulated worlds

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this