Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Nick Bostrom - What is the Doomsday Argument?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 жов 2016
- The Copernican Principle asserts that humans are not special, that we should expect to find ourselves in an ordinary place or position. But if humanity continues for billions of years, we today would find ourselves extraordinarily early in human history.
Click here to watch more interviews on the Doomsday Argument bit.ly/2dOVBN8
Click here to watch more interviews with Nick Bostrom bit.ly/1JW1kaY
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
Pewds watched this video and thought
"hmmmm I can make a video about it"
That would be funny if it was the same video
he did a very good job explaining something complicated
Of course, it's inconclusive. Why should I assume that I've picked at random among all possible consciousness ? What would that even mean ? It isn't rigorous reasoning it the slightest sense.
That's my problem as well. Also, "you won't have any kids, because if you were to have kids, then you would have been more likely to be born as them" is the logic which comes out of this.
this is an adaptation of the German Tank Problem.
Because of the need to overcome the great filter obstacle, advisable to slow advance towards planetary civilization, even though and maybe even because there are other benefits, so that great filter obstacle can be overcome and doomday argument will shift from doom soon to doom late scenario.
Regarding the Doomsday argument, the urn analogy does not seem fitting. A large part of what defines "you", and in this thought experiment setting perhaps the only part that is important, is that "you" are a product of a process that evolves through time, and if or when "you" will come into existence depends on the previous steps of the process. Thus, it makes no sense to model the occurrence of "you" in this process with the draw of a random ball from a set of balls in an urn, where no interdependence between the balls is considered. Instead, think of this analogy: There is a machine creating balls one after the other. For the nth ball, number n is assigned to the ball by the machine and this is the only difference between the created balls. The balls are designed with complex mechanisms that generate consciousness and they become aware of their existence their numbers and probability theory (they can apply logic and do the necessary math and calculations). They are also aware of the fact that the machine is programmed to either generate 10 balls with 0.5 probability, or 1,000,000 balls with 0.5 probability. What do you think ball number 7 should infer about the number of balls that will be generated? It is obvious that it should assign 0.5 probability that 10 balls will be generated and 0.5 probability that 1,000,000 balls will be generated. Thus, it is clear that the order of appearance of the conscious ball in the process does not affect its inference on the estimated probabilities. If you are still not convinced consider that the machine could even delay the random selection until after the 10th ball is created.
The analogy I have proposed provides another insight. It highlights that the probabilities that the conscious ball estimates are actually on whether it is created by a machine programmed to generate 10 balls or by a machine programmed to generate 1,000,000 balls. However, this tells very little about the probability that actually 1,000,000 balls will be created even if the machine is programmed to do so. Parameters that can not be accounted by the ball's model of the world (e.g. the availability of actual materials used by the machine for the generation of the balls, power supply of the machine, malfunctions, accidents, external users of the machine interrupting the program, etc.) may occur and prevent the machine from generating the programmed amount of conscious balls. This indicates that the best thing you can do is model the process generating "you" utilizing all the available knowledge you have, perform the probabilities estimation of the evolution of the process (while ignoring the fact that "you" occurred in the certain part of the process that "you" occurred, i.e. dismissing the erroneous Doomsday argument), but be perfectly aware that your estimates can be greatly wrong depending on the knowledge you have on the process and what can interfere with it. So there is no shortcut to estimate the longevity of the human race with dubious arguments based on misuse of the information that the generation of a conscious observer occurred. The only way to do it is by constantly increasing your knowledge on the process and what affects it, generating better models that provide more informed estimates of the probabilities. In my analogy, I have merely generated the simplest possible observers that only observe their own number in order to highlight better my arguments using this marginal case.
Very nice introduction to the problem!
What are the implications that someone picking a ball out of urn today is part of human population that has almost entirely spread over the earth? Would a better urn experiment also take into consideration both the number of people living on earth and the population that can survive on earth?
what if the seventh person ever had picked that ball?
To avoid doomsday argument for doom soon scenario, either planetary civilization would need to identify the great filter obstacle being faced and come up with a way to overcome that obstacle; or advance toward planetary civilization would need to slow down to put off great filter obstacle until humanity ready to overcome.
There's no reason to think there's one great filter. There could be a near infinite number of great filters, or none at all.
I'm not sure the analogy really makes any sense though. It's more like there being two urns, one which will have 10 placed in it and one which will have 100000 placed in it. We stand together and I put the first one in, then I turn to the person next to me and say "so which urn do you think it is?". Then I put the second ball in and ask the same question. There is no valid information to draw the conclusion from.
Agree totally.
Everything doesn't have a 50 50 chance
So where does the doomsday clock fit into this discussion? It says we have 90 seconds. Even if it is off a little bit we are on a pretty short string.
That fits into what he called the "prior probablity". The doomsdayargument is separate.
Can't wait to see some pseudo intellectual on Rogan talk about this for half an hour in the near future
If there's only one Urn and it is just as easy to pick ball 7 as ball 1,000,000 and you have no perception that there are many or few balls, then the argument is very contraversial. The notion that 'you picked' Ball 7 just makes it seem more likely as, possibly, 10 is slightly easier to visualise than 1,000,000. You only get to pick one time.
Like the major lottery winner: Just because a person is maybe five times more likely to be struck down by lightning than to predict the right numbers to win the lottery it doesn't then follow that the winner will be struck down or ever was struck down by lightning.
Random IS random.
You first thought of the analogy described here? That the birth-rank of a human is equivalent to the number of the ball, etc? Is this bostrom's original idea?
I'm not sure I agree with the word "caution" they advice. If doomsday argument is sound, then caution is irrelevant and doomsday is imminent. The argument is in no way conditional on whether we are aware of it or not, so our awareness would not change its estimates.
I hear what he's saying, but what exactly is he trying to refute? He never explains what the doomsday argument is. The probability (of the doomsday) increases by an unknown tiny percentage for each day but we don't know from what to how much. In the last century the probability may have increased more than in, say the 19th century but we can't say for sure nor whether it's significant or not
What is real? How do you define real?
In the urn experiment, the number is more likely drawn based on lhuman population that has lived, not on the human population that will live? The human population that has lived can be estimated with a reasonable degree of accuracy; the human population that will live can only be estimated with a very small degree of accuracy if at all?
I don't believe so. IF the human species overcomes the "great filter" and goes on to colonize other worlds, perhaps even the whole galaxy, that would surely mean that the number of humans *_that will live_* will be unimaginably huge... and that the whole history of the human race will be unimaginably long. If we choose to see the entire history of our species as a kind of data set, wouldn't it be much more likely for you or I to be born in that golden future time of vast population... IF it exists or is ever to be? 🤨
came from Pewdiepie
Very well explained!
And ...
"... Even a tiny probability of humanity going extinct ought to be enough to motivate us to take whatever action is needed to reduce that within reasonable limits ..."
Precisely! And we should eschew arguments that the end times are 'just-around-the-corner-no-matter-what' and thus embrace the status quo as far as our global behavior goes. Such an argument flies in the face of life itself.
Planetary civilization is facing the great filter and how it is handled determines doom soon or doom later scenario.
Pewdiepie fans?
I'm a fan of Nick Bostrom after hearing him on the Joe Rogan Podcast.
Hasn't this technically been true for the total of human history?
If I understand you, I had the same thought. Any human assuming they were in the middle of history would not expect our progress. The hundredth human doubts the thousandth who doubts the millionth, billionth etc.
But the hundredth is vastly outnumbered by the thousandth, and so on. The argument always works out so that the people correct in the argument outnumber the people that were wrong.
It may be that every single person that has ever lived today is dead wrong, but that implies trillions more in the future will be correct in applying it.
@@JudoP_slinging That "The argument always works" is the problem. When everyone can think they're right yet be dead wrong then you have added nothing to our understanding. Ignoring a track record of constant failure with the belief that you should be at least halfway to the end is a good way to sell scratchcards.
@@tokaichar4832 the argument is structured such that a majority will be correct in their assumption. It doesn't matter if every human previous to us is wrong as they will then by definition be wildly outnumbered by future humans that will be correct. We don't know where we are on the chain, that's the point. Besides, many of us or even all of us alive today could be correct in making this argument, you don't know yet.
@@JudoP_slinging The argument isn't structured that way. As explained in the video, the lower the total number of possible outcomes the more likely your number is. AKA statistically the end is always nigh. However, lets for the sake of argument agree that the prediction is so wide that it covers the majority of every human who has or will exist. That makes it unimpressive. A psychic predicting you have two arms gets no credit for being right. Along with the always shifting goalposts, I don't see much distinction from pseudoscience.
Doomsday argument for doom soon scenario relevant if the great filter facing planetary civilization is not overcome.
If planetary civilization advanced before humanity can overcome the great filter obstacle, then doom soon scenario is probable doomsday argument.
The argument is total rubbish. Suppose it is true that statistically we are very likely to find ourselves amidst the last of the species. Once we are here, even so, all the empirical evidence we can gather about the state of the world should override any prior expectations. To just continue to think that 'oh well, those are the statistics, and statistics don't lie', is to disregard the evidence that has come to your attention. Once you are here, you should disregard the statistics and find out what is actually going on.
Who else came from PewDiePie
I don’t agree with his reasoning. Unfortunately, the Doomsday Argument holds water. Just look at the empirical evidence as shown by the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962. We were mere minutes away from possible nuclear annihilation! Our technology has vastly improved, but all of our human frailties remain….
All species, without exception, on this planet have either died out or evolved. On a cosmological scale, we are still doomed to our speck of existence within this ever changing and time engulfing universe.
sounds pretty good if you ask me, half empty or half full. we are the left overs after all the extinctions, that should make everyone feel a bit special.
I'm pretty sure that cockroaches have been cockroaches ever since far before the dinosaurs.
Mayans thought the world was ending and they only had a number or rank close to 100-200 million or who knows. Why should we think that it will be doom soon since for all we know e might be trillions in 10 thousand years
Doomday argument could indicate confrontation with the great filter obstacle to life in cosmos. At this time humanity is nearing a planetary civilization which may be the catalyst for presence of the great filter and occurence of doomsday argument
So many balls
what??????
I thought it was pretty straight forward..
it I very rare for humans to go extinct, weather it would be good or bad is undecided. depends on your view I guess. in some scenarios it would be bad ion others it would be good, evolving aka extinction is one scenario.
For those confused, he is not explaining correctly the argument. "Doomsday" refers to the possibility that the number of humans will decline, which would only come around from some sort of catastrophe since humans like sex and chauvinistically making copies of ourselves, but I digress. Thinking we are human number 10billion, as he says, is irrelevant to the argument. It is about a planet with this order of magnitude of population. We are in number one if we measure in centuries (or maybe around number 10 in decades) with this order of magnitude of human population. Therefore, since we have already reached 7B at present and we like reproducing and keeping the numbers up as much as diseases, famine, war, etc allow, what are the odds that we would pop out in this world in decade 10 or 20, which is barely a handful of human generations.
I hope that clarified things.
GOD has let things go as far as He intends to.
There's no reason to let anyone alive to continue on, pretty much why I AM here. I gave everyone the best opportunity to exist but they didn't want to.