= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on An empirical test of anthropic principle / great filter reasoning - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (39)
Seems to be a lot of buzz about Katja_Grace's most recent input on the Doomsday problem. Background: see my points in this discussion a while back, about the problem of counting observers, which applies to her filling of the boxes.
Regarding this post and Katja Grace's argument, I think James Miller's point could generalize even further, showing clearly the reductio:
"Out of all attempts at significant technological gain in a civilization, few will succeed. We're a civilization. Therefore, ours probably won't advance."
As far as I can tell, it's analogous in all relevant respects, but feel free to prove me wrong.
You use anthropic reasoning to get the claim "few will succeed", which is a conclusion, not a premise.
"Few will succeed" is an observation, not a premise, though perhaps I should have said, "Few have been observed to succeed".
What is unjustified is the conclusion that ours will not have some success that makes up for the all the other failures, which is why I think Katja_Grace's reasoning (and its reductios) fails.
It's not an observation. It's an inference for which you need the anthropic principle. "Few have succeeded so far" is an observation. You'd need to observe the future to observe "Few will succeed".