= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Anthropics makes sense with shorter people - 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 (18)
This seems like a lot to digest. A lot of these discussions about anthropics just leave me feeling very confused. I'll just say that when I saw the title my initial thought was that it was talking about people who were short in stature.
Agreed.
Did you ever figure out what the intended meaning was?
No. I tentatively think that it might mean that it makes sense with beings with shorter histories?
I'm fairly convinced that it means "Anthropics makes sense with one person for each moment - each person being very short (as measured by their time of existence)."
Me too
Thanks for the clarification. Although I wonder if one can make a serious sort of anthropic argument about size. one shouldn't expect to find to be a member of a large species since that means that there's less room for lots of observers of that type. So we should expect to be large enough to be able to discuss anthropic reasoning but not much larger.
People who only exist for a short period of time. Once I read the actual article, I thought the title was a clever pun, but I can see how it could be confusing.