Imagine the following two population predictions:
In the first, humanity prospers. We venture into space and our population keeps growing steadily. All the humans born until now will be a fraction of all the humans that are to come in the existence of humanity. — Mind Dough
Nick Bostrom uses this kind of reasoning to argue that there is a Great Filter lying ahead of us, and that we live inside a computer simulation. — Marchesk
Whoever/whenever you are it’s always most likely that yours is the final generation. The rationale being that if the final generation is the largest one, and if a random person is always most likely to be among the largest generation/group, then it follows that you (a random person) are most likely among the final generation. — AJJ
The first is why we don't see any evidence for aliens. — Marchesk
My feeling says this is not an argument for having a larger chance that graph two is true, but I am wondering about the argumentation on that. I suspect something in the line of survivorship bias, but I am still curious whether this is an existing thought experiment (I think I saw this somewhere before) and what the arguments/criticisms are. — Mind Dough
This shows how unlikely it is that we’ll ever expand out into the galaxy, since it would mean we’re all part of a tiny fraction of all humans, rather than the other huge group. Instead it stands to reason that we’re at the top of graph 2’s curve. — AJJ
This shows how unlikely it is that we’ll ever expand out into the galaxy, since it would mean we’re all part of a tiny fraction of all humans, rather than the other huge group. Instead it stands to reason that we’re at the top of graph 2’s curve.
— AJJ
But according to that logic, it stands to reason that everyone who has ever lived was at the top of graph 2s curve, but they weren't. How is that possible? — Echarmion
If we know that someone is not at the top of Graph 2’s curve then obviously they’re not at the top of Graph 2’s curve. But we don’t know where we are, and in that ignorance the probability that we’re at the top of Grapxh 2’s curve comes into play. — AJJ
But we're turning that ignorance into a probability without further information. That is impossible. If we're ignorant about what graph we are on and where we are on that graph, we can't magically turn said ignorance into new information using math — Echarmion
<?php // The number of times the random number is the max $s = 0; // Play 100,000 games for ($i = 1, $g = 100000; $i <= $g; ++$i) { // Select a max number at random $m = mt_rand(1, 100); // If a random number between 1 and max is max if ($m == mt_rand(1, $m)) { ++$s; } } // Output the success rate echo $s / $g * 100;
The information we use is the assumption that the final generation will be the largest one. The mathematical reasoning we use is that it’s most likely for a random person to be part of the largest group, assuming we don’t already know where they are. — AJJ
You’ve blundered here and now you’re trying too hard to disagree with me. — AJJ
The information we use is the assumption that the final generation will be the largest one. — AJJ
The mathematical reasoning we use is that it’s most likely for a random person to be part of the largest group, assuming we don’t already know where they are. — AJJ
If you were blindfolded, so to speak, and told you were part of one of those generations, which would you predict you were a part of?
Your answer wouldn’t be “I’m most likely part the first four”, but rather “I’m most likely part of the last four”. Of those four you’re most likely part of the last three. Of those the last two, and of those the last one.
Is that not right? — AJJ
But as you state, this isn't information, but an assumption. But even if we grant the assumption as essentially correct, it does still not contain any information about humanities demise, so the question of where that information comes from remains. — Echarmion
As an analogy, take the hotel room example. You're in a hotel with 100 rooms, but you don't know which room you're in. If someone asks you whether you are in the first ten rooms, your answer should be no. But if someone asks you whether you are in room 2 or in room 50 your answer should not be fifty just because you are more likely not to be in the first 10 rooms. Because for that specific question, the probability of either is 1/100. This probability doesn't change if you arbitrarily divide the hotel rooms into groups. — Echarmion
Your dice example isn’t analogous to the group situation described. We’re not rolling a dice to find out which group we’re in, but using the amount of people in each group to work out the likelihoods. — AJJ
A dice analogy would go like this: Imagine you’re a spot on a dice. Which side are you most likely on? You’re more likely on the 2-6 sides than the 1 side. Of those you’re more likely on the 3-6 sides, and so on. — AJJ
I did that here:
1: 100 people (6.7%)
2: 200 people (13.3%)
3: 300 people (20%)
4: 400 people (26.7%)
5: 500 people (33.3%) — Michael
Doesn’t this prove my point? I think the mistake here is making groups 1-4 one group. You can’t be in multiple generations; since you can only be in one it’s most likely you’re in 5. — AJJ
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.