DavidV Posted May 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 The two ways to attack this argument is to redefine the sample size or to show a bias in the selection criteria. However, while there are many attempts above and on Wikipedia, I’ve not seen a convincing argument for either. You can’t presume a selection bias – when calculating probabilities, you assume randomness unless there is evidence of bias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted May 5, 2006 Report Share Posted May 5, 2006 The two ways to attack this argument is to redefine the sample size or to show a bias in the selection criteria. However, while there are many attempts above and on Wikipedia, I’ve not seen a convincing argument for either. You can’t presume a selection bias – when calculating probabilities, you assume randomness unless there is evidence of bias. I don't mean to be obstinate, but it seems to me that the selection bias is inherent in the question. Perhaps I misunderstand, but doesnt your sample size have to be limited to human history to present? Anything significantly past this point is speculation and can't really be considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted May 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2006 Speculation, n: a. Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation. b. A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture. c. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition If you mean ©, then you will have to show what evidence is missing, and why it's nessesary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted May 5, 2006 Report Share Posted May 5, 2006 Speculation, n: a. Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation. b. A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture. c. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition If you mean ©, then you will have to show what evidence is missing, and why it's nessesary. Actually B seems more appropriate. The information that seems to be lacking is human history from this point forward. For example, their is a 100% chance that anyone alive now was born on or before this date. What are the chances of that? If you speculate on the time humans have left, that fact doesn't have a bearing on the future. There is no causality here. Ok...think of it this way...If you flip heads 5 times in a row, what are the chances you will flip heads again? They are still 50/50. The earlier instances dont relate to the later instances. If you flip the coin 1000 more times, you might ascertain at that point-after the 1000 flips- that 5 heads in a row is fairly rare. Then you could say, how unusual that the 1st 5 flips were of a pattern that occurs so infrequently. So to relate that to your query...Take it back several thousand years. If you were part of the first couple million humans you could have played the same mind game. You would be in an even smaller percentage and it would seem all but impossible that humans would still exist several thousand years later and number in the billions and yet, here we are. That fact that we are here now can have no bearing on whether humans will exist later. Someone had to be here. Someone had to be the first 5 flips. It doesn't mean that you can't flip the coin 995 more times. See what I mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.