= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
b1shop comments on [Draft] Holy Bayesian Multiverse, Batman! - 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 (24)
You're right about the first part. I'll fix it when I get to a real computer.
Since we observed humanity surviving, I think it's alright to use a more specific reference class. If the anthropic principle holds for life in general, then it also holds for just JoshuaZ, right?
No matter what p(S) is, p(S|MW) is larger.
Yes, but I don't know how much larger. So claiming that one should update "radically upwards" is questionable without a lot more of an idea how much and what sorts of life we should expect.
If you make the case that p(S) should include any life, then I can concede the adverb perhaps shouldn't be so dramatic. Are we in agreement that it would be dramatic if we only included humanity exactly like us? If so, I'd like a second opinion from others if a specific anthropic principle is allowed, because it seems reasonable to me.
Yes, because there are times in the history of humanity where we got close to being wiped out (the Toba event being possibly the best documented).
I'd be very curious if anyone else agrees with you there. I don't understand the basis for such a specific reference class, since every intelligent species that thinks about MWI will be in the same position.