= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
rwallace comments on SIA won't doom you - 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 (31)
It is strange how people still seem to think this argument has something to do with doomsday - when what it actually about is a failure to make progress towards galactic civilisation.
I've pointed this out several times now - and so far nobody has even attempted to make a case for terminal setbacks - rather than roadblocks. Doomsday makes for better headlines, I guess.
[Update 2010-11-05] - K.G. now discusses such an case in her thesis - available from: http://meteuphoric.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/anthropic-principles-agree-on-bigger-future-filters/
I have! http://lesswrong.com/lw/10n/why_safety_is_not_safe/
But basically, yes, I agree completely. I'm not convinced even by this version of the Doomsday Argument, not because I have a refutation to hand, but because the track record of this kind of philosophical reasoning in actually producing right answers is probably worse than random chance; that having been said, I can believe it could be valid, and that most intelligent species end up hamstringing themselves in the name of safety and spending all their energy on bickering about intra-species politics until their time runs out.