Maybe we should use not adult observers but observers who know and could understand probability theory. Probably there were several millions of them before now. Most of them lived in the 20 century. So it makes DA prediction even sharper.
You could also count your position between all people who understand Doomsday argument. Maybe only 10 000 people did it since 1983 when it was first time proposed. And this number is also growing exponentially. This means that only 10 years is left before Doom.
Also I could count my position between all who understand that Doomsday argument reference class is all people who understand DA. Probably only a few did it. I knows it last 3 years. And it means sooner Doom. Or that all this line of reasoning is false.
Another issue… Yes restricting the reference class to people who are discussing the DA is possible, which would imply that humans will stop discussing the DA soon… not necessarily that we will die out soon. This is one of the ways of escaping from a doomish conclusion.
Except when you then think “Hmm, but then why does the DA class disappear soon?” If the human race survives for even a medium-long period, then people will return to it from time to time over the next centuries/millennia (e.g. it could be part of a background course on how not to apply Bayes’s theorem) in which case we look like atypically early members of the DA class right now.. Or even if humanity struggles on a few more decades, then collapses this century, we look like atypically early members of the DA class right now (I’d expect a lot of attention to the DA when it becomes clear to the world that we’re about to collapse).
Finally, the DA reference class is more complicated than the wider reference class of all observations, since there is more built into its definition. Since, it is more complex and has less predictive power (it doesn’t predict we’d be this early in the class) it looks like the incorrect reference class for us to use right now.
1 We will die off very soon, in next 10 years perhaps. It is possible because of «success« in bioengineering and AI.
2 In next 10 years DA will be rebutted in very spectacular and obvious way. Everyone since will know this rebuttal.
3 DA is wrong.
My opinion is that very soon dieoff is inevitable and only something really crazy could save as. It could be quantum immortality, or AI crash project, or extraterrestrial intelligence or owners of our simulation.
I suppose a “really fast, really soon” decline is possible … something so quick that essentially no-one notices, and hence there isn’t a lot of discussion about why DA seems to have been right when the decline happens.
However, one problem is making this model generic across multiple civilisations of observers (not just humans). Is it really plausible that essentially every civilisation that arises crashes almost immediately after someone first postulates the DA (so the total class of DA-aware observers is really tiny in every civilisation)? If some civilisations are more drawn-out than others, and have a huge number of observers thinking about DA before collapse, then we are—again—atypical members of the DA class.
It is really interesting point—to see all DA aware observers in all civilizations.
So maybe technologies are the main reason why all civilizations crash. And understanding of DA typically appear tougher with science. So this explain why understanding of DA is coincedent with global catastrophes.
But more strong could be idea that understanding of DA has casual relation with catastrophes. Something like strong anthropic principle. Now I think that it is good idea for science fiction, because it is not clear how DA understanding could destroy the world, but may be it worth more thinking about it.
Maybe we should use not adult observers but observers who know and could understand probability theory.
You can’t just set the observer class to whatever you want. You get different answers. You have to use the class of every possible observer. I can explain this mathematically if you wish, but I don’t have time right now.
No, I can. But my answers give only time of existence of this referent class, not general Doom. For example,
someone knows that he is a student in the University for 2 years. So he could conclude that he will be a student 2 more years with probability 50 per cent.
This is the answer to so called problem of referent class in DA. Each referent class has his own time of existence, its own end.
P(There are m total humans | You are human number n) = P(You are human number n | There are m total humans) * P(You are human number n) / P(There are m total humans)
If P(You are human number n | There are m total humans) came out to equal n/m, it would work fine. It doesn’t.
P(You are human number n | There are m total humans) = P(You are human number n | There are m total humans & You are human) * P(You are human | There are m total humans)
= n/m * P(You are human | There are m total humans)
If P(You are human | There are m total humans) was constant, it would still work. The problem is, it’s not. It only works out that way if the number of observers is proportional to the number of humans. For example, if almost all life is either human, or wildlife on planets humans terraformed.
Interesting point… However my post was not favouring adult observations as such; just counting all observations, and noting that people who live longer will make more of them. There is no need to exclude observations by children and infants from the reference class.
Maybe we should use not adult observers but observers who know and could understand probability theory. Probably there were several millions of them before now. Most of them lived in the 20 century. So it makes DA prediction even sharper.
You could also count your position between all people who understand Doomsday argument. Maybe only 10 000 people did it since 1983 when it was first time proposed. And this number is also growing exponentially. This means that only 10 years is left before Doom.
Also I could count my position between all who understand that Doomsday argument reference class is all people who understand DA. Probably only a few did it. I knows it last 3 years. And it means sooner Doom. Or that all this line of reasoning is false.
Another issue… Yes restricting the reference class to people who are discussing the DA is possible, which would imply that humans will stop discussing the DA soon… not necessarily that we will die out soon. This is one of the ways of escaping from a doomish conclusion.
Except when you then think “Hmm, but then why does the DA class disappear soon?” If the human race survives for even a medium-long period, then people will return to it from time to time over the next centuries/millennia (e.g. it could be part of a background course on how not to apply Bayes’s theorem) in which case we look like atypically early members of the DA class right now.. Or even if humanity struggles on a few more decades, then collapses this century, we look like atypically early members of the DA class right now (I’d expect a lot of attention to the DA when it becomes clear to the world that we’re about to collapse).
Finally, the DA reference class is more complicated than the wider reference class of all observations, since there is more built into its definition. Since, it is more complex and has less predictive power (it doesn’t predict we’d be this early in the class) it looks like the incorrect reference class for us to use right now.
So there are 3 possibility:
1 We will die off very soon, in next 10 years perhaps. It is possible because of «success« in bioengineering and AI.
2 In next 10 years DA will be rebutted in very spectacular and obvious way. Everyone since will know this rebuttal.
3 DA is wrong.
My opinion is that very soon dieoff is inevitable and only something really crazy could save as. It could be quantum immortality, or AI crash project, or extraterrestrial intelligence or owners of our simulation.
I suppose a “really fast, really soon” decline is possible … something so quick that essentially no-one notices, and hence there isn’t a lot of discussion about why DA seems to have been right when the decline happens.
However, one problem is making this model generic across multiple civilisations of observers (not just humans). Is it really plausible that essentially every civilisation that arises crashes almost immediately after someone first postulates the DA (so the total class of DA-aware observers is really tiny in every civilisation)? If some civilisations are more drawn-out than others, and have a huge number of observers thinking about DA before collapse, then we are—again—atypical members of the DA class.
It is really interesting point—to see all DA aware observers in all civilizations. So maybe technologies are the main reason why all civilizations crash. And understanding of DA typically appear tougher with science. So this explain why understanding of DA is coincedent with global catastrophes.
But more strong could be idea that understanding of DA has casual relation with catastrophes. Something like strong anthropic principle. Now I think that it is good idea for science fiction, because it is not clear how DA understanding could destroy the world, but may be it worth more thinking about it.
You can’t just set the observer class to whatever you want. You get different answers. You have to use the class of every possible observer. I can explain this mathematically if you wish, but I don’t have time right now.
No, I can. But my answers give only time of existence of this referent class, not general Doom. For example, someone knows that he is a student in the University for 2 years. So he could conclude that he will be a student 2 more years with probability 50 per cent.
This is the answer to so called problem of referent class in DA. Each referent class has his own time of existence, its own end.
Yes, you can’t. At least, not if you do it right.
P(There are m total humans | You are human number n) = P(You are human number n | There are m total humans) * P(You are human number n) / P(There are m total humans)
If P(You are human number n | There are m total humans) came out to equal n/m, it would work fine. It doesn’t.
P(You are human number n | There are m total humans) = P(You are human number n | There are m total humans & You are human) * P(You are human | There are m total humans)
= n/m * P(You are human | There are m total humans)
If P(You are human | There are m total humans) was constant, it would still work. The problem is, it’s not. It only works out that way if the number of observers is proportional to the number of humans. For example, if almost all life is either human, or wildlife on planets humans terraformed.
Ok, intresting point. But the fact than I am human is strong evidence that most sentient life is human.
Like the fact that i am in middle class tells that large part of people also is middle class.
Interesting point… However my post was not favouring adult observations as such; just counting all observations, and noting that people who live longer will make more of them. There is no need to exclude observations by children and infants from the reference class.