peter_hurford comments on The Octopus, the Dolphin and Us: a Great Filter tale - Less Wrong

48 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 03 September 2014 09:37PM

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

Comments (233)

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

Comment author: peter_hurford 30 August 2014 02:43:56PM 2 points [-]

From the article:

The real filter could be a combination of an early one and a late one, of course. But, unless the factors are exquisitely well-balanced, its likely that there is one location in civilizational development where most of the filter lies (ie where the probability of getting to the next stage is the lowest).

That doesn't sound like it admits the possibility of twelve, independent, roughly equally balanced filters.

Comment author: [deleted] 30 August 2014 03:46:19PM 1 point [-]

You're being uncharitable. "[It's] likely [that X]" doesn't exclude the possibility of non-X.

If you know nothing about a probability distribution, it is more likely that it has one absolute maximum than more than one.

Comment author: peter_hurford 31 August 2014 02:06:41AM 10 points [-]

Maybe I am being uncharitable, but when Sophronius asks "[c]an somebody explain to me why people generally assume that the great filter has a single cause?" and you reply "I don't think anyone really assumes that", I have to admit that I've always seen people think of the Great Filter in terms of one main cause (e.g., look to the poll in this thread where people choose one particular cause), and not in terms of multiple causes.

Though, you're right that no one has said that multiple causes is outright impossible. And you may be right that one main cause makes a lot more sense. But I do think Sophronius raises a question worth considering, at least a bit.

Comment author: AnthonyC 08 September 2014 02:11:13AM 5 points [-]

At least in other Less Wrong posts and comments on the topic, the question is usually presented probabilistically, as in "Does the bulk of the great filter lie ahead of us or behind us?"

Though, it is usually not specified whether the writer is asking where the greatest number of candidates gets ruled out, or the greatest fraction. Maybe there are ten factors that each eliminate 90% of candidates prior to the technological civilization level (leaving maybe a hundred near-type-I civilizations per galaxy), but one factor (AI? self-destruction by war or ecological collapse? Failing to colonize other worlds before a stray cosmic whatever destroys your homeworld?) takes out 99% of what is left. In that case nearly all the great filter would be behind us, and our odds still wouldn't be good.