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.

JoshuaZ comments on Astronomy, space exploration and the Great Filter - Less Wrong Discussion

23 Post author: JoshuaZ 19 April 2015 07:26PM

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

Comments (68)

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

Comment author: JoshuaZ 20 April 2015 04:28:03PM 0 points [-]

I may not have explained this very well. The essential idea is being examined is the proposal that one doesn't have a single low probability event but a series of low probability events that must happen in serial after life arises even as there are chances for each happen in parallel (say , multicellular life, development of neurons or equivalent, development of writing, etc.) In that case, most civilizations should show up around the long-lived stars as long as the others issues are only marginally unlikely.

Thus, the tentative conclusion is that life itself isn't that unlikely and we find ourselves around a star like the sun because they have much bigger habitable zones than red dwarfs (or for some similar reason) so the anthropics go through as your last bit expects.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 20 April 2015 04:43:33PM 0 points [-]

I understood perfectly, I just think you're making a math error.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 20 April 2015 05:10:31PM 2 points [-]

In that case, I'm confused as to what the error is. Can you expand?

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 20 April 2015 06:34:49PM 2 points [-]

No, you're right. Environments are favored by their lifespan raised to the power of the number of Poisson filters.