You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Manfred comments on [Link]: Anthropic shadow, or the dark dusk of disaster - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 04 July 2013 07:52PM

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

Comments (25)

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

Comment author: Manfred 05 July 2013 06:08:50AM 0 points [-]

It doesn't look like there's heavy anthropic bias there.

Citation?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 05 July 2013 01:55:15PM 3 points [-]

I don't have a citation for this, more a general familiarity with the literature on the subject, and that no one has ever said "hey it looks like we should have seen a lot more impacts on Earth than we've apparently gotten" or anything similar.

Comment author: Manfred 05 July 2013 02:07:44PM *  1 point [-]

and that no one has ever said "hey it looks like we should have seen a lot more impacts on Earth than we've apparently gotten"

Wouldn't this be a (weak, since humans have lots of reasons) piece of evidence that people see the same pattern of collision sizes on earth as on e.g. the moon?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 05 July 2013 02:12:58PM *  3 points [-]

Yes, and that's the point: that suggests that there's little anthropic bias at work here. A heavy anthropic bias would be if we didn't see the same collision patterns.

Comment author: Nornagest 05 July 2013 06:14:34AM *  2 points [-]

This paper seems to have some useful data. I'd be happier with a table of crater sizes and ages that I could plug into Octave and fit a regression to, but so far I haven't been able to come up with any decent-sized datasets.

ETA: The Lunar Impact Crater Database could probably do it, if you feel like doing some messy conversion.