it would be senseless for him to come to the same conclusion that I have.
Why do you say that?
Suppose you have an urn containing consecutively numbered balls. But you don’t know how many. Draw one ball from the urn and update your probabilities regarding the number of balls. Draw a second ball, and update again.
Two friends each draw one ball and then share information. I don’t see why the ball you drew yourself should be privileged.
Two variants of this urn problem that may offer some insight into the Doomsday Argument:
The balls are not numbered 1,2,3,… Instead they are labeled “1st generation”, “2nd generation”, … After sampling, estimate the label on the last ball.
The balls are labeled “1 digit”, “2 digits”, “3 digits” … Again, after sampling, estimate the label on the last ball.
I see what you’re saying, but I’m not sure if the analogy applies, since it depends a great deal on the selection process. When I learn that Julius Caesar lived from 100-44BCE, or that Stephen Harper lives in the present day, that certainly doesn’t increase my estimated probability of humans dying out within the next hundred years; and if I lack information about humans yet to be born, that’s not surprising in the slightest, whether or not we go extinct soon.
Really it’s the selection process that’s the issue here; I don’t know how to make sense of the question “Which human should I consider myself most likely to be?” I’ve just never been able to nail down precisely what bothers me about the question.
Why do you say that?
Suppose you have an urn containing consecutively numbered balls. But you don’t know how many. Draw one ball from the urn and update your probabilities regarding the number of balls. Draw a second ball, and update again.
Two friends each draw one ball and then share information. I don’t see why the ball you drew yourself should be privileged.
Two variants of this urn problem that may offer some insight into the Doomsday Argument:
The balls are not numbered 1,2,3,… Instead they are labeled “1st generation”, “2nd generation”, … After sampling, estimate the label on the last ball.
The balls are labeled “1 digit”, “2 digits”, “3 digits” … Again, after sampling, estimate the label on the last ball.
I see what you’re saying, but I’m not sure if the analogy applies, since it depends a great deal on the selection process. When I learn that Julius Caesar lived from 100-44BCE, or that Stephen Harper lives in the present day, that certainly doesn’t increase my estimated probability of humans dying out within the next hundred years; and if I lack information about humans yet to be born, that’s not surprising in the slightest, whether or not we go extinct soon.
Really it’s the selection process that’s the issue here; I don’t know how to make sense of the question “Which human should I consider myself most likely to be?” I’ve just never been able to nail down precisely what bothers me about the question.