= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Michaelos comments on Quickly passing through the great filter - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (50)
I have a question. Does the probability that the colonization of the universe with light speed probes has occurred, but only in areas where we would not have had enough time to notice it yet, affect the Great Filter argument?
For instance, assume the closest universal colonization with near light speed probes to us started 100 light years away in distance, 50 years ago in time. When we look at the star where colonization started, we wouldn't see evidence of near light speed colonization yet, because we're seeing light from 100 years ago, before they started.
I think a simpler way of putting this might be "What is the probability our tests for colonial explosion are giving a false negative? If that probability was high, would it affect the Great Filter Argument?"
The great filter argument and Fermi's paradox take into account the speed of light, and the size and age of the galaxy. Both figure that there has been plenty of time for aliens to colonize the galaxy even if they traveled at, say, 1% of the speed of light. If our galaxy were much younger or the space between star systems much bigger there would not be a Fermi paradox and we wouldn't need fear the great filter.
To directly answer the question of your second sentence, yes but only by a very small amount.
I think that reading this and thinking it over helped me figure out a confusing math error I was making. Thank you!
Normally, to calculate the odds of a false negative, I would need the test accuracy, but I would also need the base rate.
I.E, If a test for the presence or absence of colonization is 99% accurate, and the base rate for evidence of colonization is present in 1% of stars, and my test is negative, then I can compute the odds of a false negative.
However, in this case, I was attempting to determine "Given that our tests aren't perfectly accurate, what if the base rate of colonization isn't 0%?" and while that may be a valid question, I was using the wrong math to work on it, and it was leading me to conclusions that didn't make a shred of sense.