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.

DanielLC comments on A resolution to the Doomsday Argument. - Less Wrong Discussion

-2 Post author: Eitan_Zohar 24 May 2015 05:58PM

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

Comments (86)

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

Comment author: DanielLC 25 May 2015 10:53:49PM 2 points [-]

It's not about the number of humans. It's about the number of observer-moments. Imagine if you were the only human ever. If you're only twenty years old, it's unlikely that you'd live to be a billion. You're not going to just happen to be in one of the first twenty years.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 29 May 2015 05:14:45AM 0 points [-]

What does that mean, "You're not going to just happen to be in one of the first twenty years"? There are people who have survived more than one billion seconds past their twenty first birthdays. And each one, at one point, was within twenty second of their twenty first birthday. What would you say to someone whose twenty first birthday was less than twenty seconds ago who says "I'm not going to just happen to be in the first twenty seconds"?

Comment author: DanielLC 29 May 2015 06:25:52AM 1 point [-]

And each one, at one point, was within twenty second of their twenty first birthday.

Yes, but at many more points they were not.

What would you say to someone whose twenty first birthday was less than twenty seconds ago who says "I'm not going to just happen to be in the first twenty seconds"?

I'd tell them that they're even less likely to hallucinate evidence that suggests they are.

Every day, at some point it's noon, to the second. If you looked at your watch and it had a second hand, and it was noon to the second, you'd still find that a pretty big coincidence, wouldn't you?