Why doesn't the Copernican Principle apply to inferences of the age and origins of the universe? Some cosmologists argue that we live in a privileged era of the universe when we can infer its origins because we can still observe the red shift of distant galaxies. After these galaxies pass beyond the event horizon, observers existing X billion years from now in our galaxy wouldn't have the data to deduce the universe's expansion, its apparent age, and therefore the Big Bang.
Yet the Copernican Principle denies the assumption that any privileged observers of the universe can exist. What if it turns out instead that the universe appears to have the same age and history, regardless of how much time passes according to how we measure it?
Yet the Copernican Principle denies the assumption that any privileged observers of the universe can exist.
I don't think it denies the assumption in most forms. It might be better to state the Copernican Principle as assigning a low prior that we are privileged observers. That low prior can then be adjust to a reasonable posterior based on evidence.
r/Fitness does a weekly "Moronic Monday", a judgment-free thread where people can ask questions that they would ordinarily feel embarrassed for not knowing the answer to. I thought this seemed like a useful thing to have here - after all, the concepts discussed on LessWrong are probably at least a little harder to grasp than those of weightlifting. Plus, I have a few stupid questions of my own, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that other people might as well.