While I generally find the argument (or its direction) compelling, it appears to me that there's also a mathematical issue involved: We can't just expect there to be "two boxes" of equal probability. If we assume some base rate of how long species survive, we could e.g. have billions of boxes, for any number of years of total existence of the human race until it perishes. For simplicity's sake let's assume they all have equal probability (although in practice this would probably be a log-normal / heavy tailed distribution with lower numbers of years being much more likely than larger numbers). In that case, while taking any two boxes (exceeding our current lifespan, since we know we didn't die out yet), the smaller one is indeed more likely. But taking _all_ boxes into account, the cumulated probability of long term survival becomes much more likely. E.g. there are only 1000 boxes representing us dying out in the next 1000 years, but billions of boxes behind that. Applying some base rate derived probabilities to these boxes would surely lead to varying outcomes, and people would likely not easily agree on what the base rates are. So in the end this might not lead anywhere, but it would still be a more accurate reflection of the actual situation imho. Lastly, the part about it that I find compelling: We're living in an extremely special time. It seems clear that humanity only very recently got the power to destroy itself, and now there is a huge number of different risks awaiting us that might reasonably lead to human extinction in the next decades or centuries (nuclear war, climate change, AI, bio risk, nanotechnology, ...), many of them becoming more and more likely over time. If we do in fact keep on living for millions of years, then it just feels extremely surprising for me as an individual to be experiencing this particular extremely weird time, rather than any other time. If we die out soon however, then it would be much less surprising: ~7% of all ever existing humans are alive today, so if we die out soon, then being alive at this time is in fact very normal. The fact that we're all right now experiencing this crucial "hinge of history" era might also be considered evidence (albeit of course not proof) for us to be living in a simulation, as one could argue that, when simulating worlds, it is probable one would pick some particularly interesting scenario (such as the current time), and maybe simulate that over and over again with differing conditions.
Th cosmos doesn't care about the number of humans that have already or haven't been born yet on Earth. The likelihood of solar flares, meteor impacts, nearby supernovae, gamma ray bursts etc. is much more relevant to the question when humans will ultimately go extinct. Emphasis being on when - not if.
the actual reason why this specific approach if flawed is a lot simpler: you do not know what your number is. Assuming that your number is your birth rank is akin to pulling a blank ball from the urn and claiming that it is number 1 because it is the first ball pulled out of the urn. Obviously, that approach can't tell you if there is a million balls still left in the urn or if it left empty after drawing the first ball. Not convinced? Then try applying the reasoning with a different numbering scheme. For instance, use the reverse order (last human to be born has number 1).
I swear I remember watching this video so long ago, yet it only came out 3 weeks ago. I wanted to revisit this theory and is the reason why I searched this up. This is weird
While I generally find the argument (or its direction) compelling, it appears to me that there's also a mathematical issue involved:
We can't just expect there to be "two boxes" of equal probability. If we assume some base rate of how long species survive, we could e.g. have billions of boxes, for any number of years of total existence of the human race until it perishes. For simplicity's sake let's assume they all have equal probability (although in practice this would probably be a log-normal / heavy tailed distribution with lower numbers of years being much more likely than larger numbers). In that case, while taking any two boxes (exceeding our current lifespan, since we know we didn't die out yet), the smaller one is indeed more likely. But taking _all_ boxes into account, the cumulated probability of long term survival becomes much more likely. E.g. there are only 1000 boxes representing us dying out in the next 1000 years, but billions of boxes behind that.
Applying some base rate derived probabilities to these boxes would surely lead to varying outcomes, and people would likely not easily agree on what the base rates are. So in the end this might not lead anywhere, but it would still be a more accurate reflection of the actual situation imho.
Lastly, the part about it that I find compelling: We're living in an extremely special time. It seems clear that humanity only very recently got the power to destroy itself, and now there is a huge number of different risks awaiting us that might reasonably lead to human extinction in the next decades or centuries (nuclear war, climate change, AI, bio risk, nanotechnology, ...), many of them becoming more and more likely over time. If we do in fact keep on living for millions of years, then it just feels extremely surprising for me as an individual to be experiencing this particular extremely weird time, rather than any other time. If we die out soon however, then it would be much less surprising: ~7% of all ever existing humans are alive today, so if we die out soon, then being alive at this time is in fact very normal.
The fact that we're all right now experiencing this crucial "hinge of history" era might also be considered evidence (albeit of course not proof) for us to be living in a simulation, as one could argue that, when simulating worlds, it is probable one would pick some particularly interesting scenario (such as the current time), and maybe simulate that over and over again with differing conditions.
Th cosmos doesn't care about the number of humans that have already or haven't been born yet on Earth. The likelihood of solar flares, meteor impacts, nearby supernovae, gamma ray bursts etc. is much more relevant to the question when humans will ultimately go extinct. Emphasis being on when - not if.
@@thotslayer9914 What does that have to do with the astronomical arguments I made? 😉
Great video. I love that you explain these concepts in a very concise and straightforward manner.
What are your thoughts about the concept of behavioral sink?
the actual reason why this specific approach if flawed is a lot simpler: you do not know what your number is. Assuming that your number is your birth rank is akin to pulling a blank ball from the urn and claiming that it is number 1 because it is the first ball pulled out of the urn. Obviously, that approach can't tell you if there is a million balls still left in the urn or if it left empty after drawing the first ball. Not convinced? Then try applying the reasoning with a different numbering scheme. For instance, use the reverse order (last human to be born has number 1).
I don’t this refuted anything, unfortunately.
Wait but those early humans were indeed atypical
I swear I remember watching this video so long ago, yet it only came out 3 weeks ago. I wanted to revisit this theory and is the reason why I searched this up. This is weird
Watch his episode on Mysticism.
The biggest wrong assumption is that there WILL be a Doomsday,
Stopped at the definition or the argument. Because it's already wrong.