steven0461 comments on If life is unlikely, SIA and SSA expectations are similar - Less Wrong

3 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 15 November 2011 04:45PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (23)
Tags: universe life anthropic_probability probability

Comments (23)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 15 November 2011 05:56:56PM 4 points [-]

Could you simplify this a bit? Maybe a one-sentence Plain English conclusion?

I followed your links, but I still don't really understand what you are trying to say. (Yes, I'm pretty new to the site, and yes, I'm working my way through the Sequences, lol)

Comment author: steven0461 15 November 2011 09:33:18PM *  31 points [-]

I asked my caveman friend to translate. He's a paleoanthropics expert.

Big chunk of space! It has three parts. Is there some guy in each part? Let's say no. Not unless the part is very lucky!

Now think of many such chunks of space that could have been! Whoa! Sense of wonder! Let's pick some guy in some chunk. That'll be us!

First let's pick some random chunk. Self-Sampling Assumption says we're a random guy in the chunk! (What if there is no guy in the chunk? Don't think about it!) Are we alone? Probably yes! Most chunks with a guy don't have a second guy. Because we said guys are rare! Math!

But now let's not pick a random chunk. Let's pick a random guy, in any chunk. Say there's two guys in a chunk. Then we'll pick a guy in the chunk twice as often! Self-Indication Assumption! (Maybe they meet and live happily ever after. Just because I'm caveman doesn't mean I heteronormatize!) Now are we alone? Still probably yes! Most guys are in their own chunk. Yes, if there's two guys in a chunk it has two chances to be picked. But there's just so few chunks with two guys. Because we said guys are rare! So this Self-Indication business hardly matters at all! Math!

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 16 November 2011 11:18:40AM 7 points [-]

Now that is the post I should have written :-)

Comment author: wedrifid 16 November 2011 04:27:49PM 3 points [-]

That could have saved me so much time. Thankyou!

Comment author: JoshuaZ 16 November 2011 03:09:41AM 3 points [-]

I don't know whether to upvote this for explaining the details or downvote this for a very distracting style.

Comment author: CarlShulman 16 November 2011 05:03:34AM 7 points [-]

Upvote.

Comment author: komponisto 16 November 2011 10:37:21AM 4 points [-]

The "very distracting style" was safely and apologetically contained inside a blockquote.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit