DanielLC comments on Anthropics doesn't explain why the Cold War stayed Cold - Less Wrong

6 Post author: KnaveOfAllTrades 20 August 2014 07:23PM

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

Comments (34)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: DanielLC 20 August 2014 08:14:35PM *  15 points [-]

Alice notices that George VI had five siblings. She asks Bob why that is. After all, it's so much more likely for him to have a number of siblings other than five. Bob tells her that it's a silly question. The only reason she picked out five is that that's how many siblings he had. If he'd had six children, she (or rather someone else, because it's not going to be the same people) would be asking why he had six siblings. There's no coincidence.

Alice notices that Earth survived the cold war. She asks Bob why that is. After all, so much more likely for Earth not to survive. Bob tells her that it's a silly question. The only reason she picked out Earth is that it's her home planet, which is because it survived the cold war. If Earth died and, say, Pandora survived, she (or rather someone else, because it's not going to be the same people) would be asking why Pandora survived the cold war. There's no coincidence.

Comment author: KnaveOfAllTrades 20 August 2014 09:08:14PM *  5 points [-]

Is this in support of or in opposition to the thesis of the post? Or am I being presumptuous to suppose that it is either?

Comment author: DanielLC 20 August 2014 11:44:04PM 3 points [-]

Opposition.

Comment author: khafra 03 September 2014 01:35:46PM 1 point [-]

The opposition is that the number of observers able to ask questions about royal siblings is not heavily correlated with the actual number of royal siblings historically present; while the number of observers able to ask questions about a lack of large thermonuclear exchanges is heavily correlated with the actual number of historical large thermonuclear exchanges.