= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JQuinton comments on Anthropics doesn't explain why the Cold War stayed Cold - 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 (34)
You can make an anthropic reasoning argument using any almost-wiped out ethnicity.
For example, Native Americans. Someone born to a Native American tribe is more likely to live in a world where Europe didn't successfully colonize the Americas than the current timeline. It's the same anthropic reasoning, but the problem is that it's fallacious to rest an entire argument on that one piece of evidence.
Unless I'm missing something, this version of anthropic reasoning seems to be making this argument: Pr(E | H) = Pr(H | E).
But in our timeline, the anthropic evidence is outweighed by much stronger regular-old evidence that Europe did, in fact, successfully colonize the Americas
...and that's why anthropics doesn't explain why the Cold War stayed cold.
Exactly. That is the point I was trying to make.