= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on David Deutsch on How To Think About The Future - 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 (197)
Duetsch is arguing (and I think correctly) that there's a difference between knowing the full range of possibilities in a system and not knowing it.
That seems pretty reasonable. "What will the future be like" is a pretty undetermined question.
However, he was applying this same logic to "will civilization be destroyed," where "destroyed" and "not destroyed" are a pretty complete range of possibilities.
Unless maybe he meant that you have to know every possible way civilization could be destroyed in order to estimate a probability, which seems like searching for a reason that civilization doesn't have probability-ness.