What is the Doomsday Argument? | Episode 1602 | Closer To Truth
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июн 2024
- Have we underestimated the risks of global catastrophe and human extinction? There is an odd argument that claims to justify End of the World worries with raw statistics. Featuring interviews with John Leslie, J. Richard Gott III, Nick Bostrom, and Martin Rees.
Season 16, Episode 2 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#EndTimes #Statistics
What are your thoughts on the Doomsday Argument? Are the underlying assumptions sound? Should we, humanity at large, endeavor to alter our behavior in light of the Doomsday Argument?
Can science explain everything in the Universe?
Can you travel out of the Universe?
The Doomsday Argument has a number of flaws; Time and Distance being the primary two. What do I mean? The Universe may well be 14 Billion years old however conditions for Billions of years would not support life. The planets of the first Suns for example would be devoid of atomic elements required for any life let alone intelligent life and technology. These elements did not exist before being created in a sun that goes on to explode. Whilst some massive suns may only last a couple of hundred million years, suns like our own last 10 Billion years. The Sun was created when the universe was approx. 9 to 10 Billion years old so perhaps it was part of an early generation of Suns and planets with enough atomic elements to support life. We also know today that not all Suns have planets that could support human life nor would the planets necessarily have all the atomic elements to support technology. It took over 4 Billion years on Earth for conditions to arise that supported life and for evolution to lead to intelligent life, us. So throw in the vast distances of the galaxy, let alone the universe, and the limitations of the speed of light, on just those grounds alone we should not be surprised that we don't find other intelligent life, yet.
The other "time factor" that could be at play is Time Dilation. Our solar system is towards the outer edge of the galaxy meaning we are moving faster relative to those suns towards the center; Time (relative to the other suns) is travelling faster for us. Gravity and velocity, certainly nowhere near consistent across the Galaxy and Universe, may play a significant part in the timing of the appearance of intelligent life.
I also don't believe the statistical arguments hold weight for a variety of reasons not least being the limited data points available and the huge "unknown" factor. We can determine the probability of any event happening, doesn't mean our prediction will come true. Take a simple coin toss, the probability of a heads vs tails is 50%, yet we could see 50 heads tossed in a row. If you bet on horses that probability said should win, you'd leave the race track poorer most days.
The Doomsday Argument answers the Fermi Paradox.
Dan Howard ..... or maybe an answer to the fermi paradox would solve the doomsday argument. Still so much we don’t know.
@@stinkertoy4310 How 1970's of you. We're way past that now.
The Doomsday Argument doesn’t bother me at all. I’m way too average to happen to be one of the few humans in the history of humanity to be around when we go extinct...
everyone will go extinct , doesnt matter if it happens through catastrophic event or just natural death , death is death.
Awesome counter. Awesome to the max.
@@stevecoats5656 You must be a shark. Not a sheep.
Your averageness has nothing to do with it!😅
What amazes me most is that people can be so interested in doomsday stories (a perpetual human fascination) and yet live their own lives as if they will never die. It seems that we'd rather speculate about something unknowable and untestable than face our own mortality.
@John Omalley ♡ sounds like that one sentence and conversation changed your life for the better. Made it fulfilling. I guess it doesn't matter if it was true or not, in the end.
so much presumption in that.
@Podcast - SørenCast Z It's laughable that some people think they can predict the future. It seems to be a part of the human condition that some people are unable to get over.
Recently I’ve been stuck in constant realization of mortality and it only makes me panic until I accept it mentally.
Take no notice , it is only the usual nutters and dreamers that have nothing more profitable with which to occupy there time, once they have exhausted the potential of their habitual cinque contra uno.
I'm Australian, so I understand that unlikely occurrences are bound to happen.
I think Martin Rees demonstrates eloquently that are living in an extremely special time with respect to Earth's history and this goes precisely against the fundamental assumption of the Doomsday argument: because the Copernician principle invoked by the argument is NOT that we live in an ordinary place in the universe, but rather that we live in an ordinary time. Seeing this and listening to Rees' simple hardly controversial explanation, it is hard to really uphold that assumption. We do live in special times indeed, and so did our ancestors since the neolithic revolution began.
The Doomsday Argument is bogus. There an infinite or an indeterminate number of possible trajectories for the longevity of any form of life. Because there are an indeterminate number of possible trajectories it is impossible to state which trajectory is a "normal" one. You can't derive a normal distribution from an infinite or indeterminate set. Therefore there can't be an a priori assumption that our current position should be in the "average" section of some normal curve. THERE IS NO NORMAL CURVE THAT APPLIES TO THE QUESTION.
The only reason I watch these Closer To Truth videos is to amuse myself by deconstructing the arguments put forward. Usually the questions themselves are bogus. They tend to be formulated on reifying some purely semantic contradiction or ambiguity.
There is a reason to fear that we could kill ourselves off in the near term, but this legitimate fear is based on the evidence of existential dangerous factors in our current situation. The Doomsday Argument is based on a misinterpretation of how statistical concepts work. Statistical concepts can't kill you in any case, and you can't reason backwards from our putative position on a non-establishable distribution curve.
Another way to realize how bogus this argument is, is to think about the fact that it could have been applied at any point in our history as a species to argue that we are likely to soon become extinct. You could have used it 150,000 years ago to predict that we didn't have long to continue in existence. An argument that could be used at any point in a trajectory to predict that the trajectory will soon come to an end has to be incorrect. My first paragraph explains why it is incorrect.
Well then if you live special times you could easily live the last quarter.
I think I was in year 3 when I learned how long a string was, it’s double half it’s length 😂
What on earth does this have to do with the doomsday scenario?
The Berlin wall metaphor...it reminded her of that. Does it matter? Does her comment effect your life?
Which gives you a reference point.
Is that for or against the doomsday argument?
Nice!🤣
Elegantly presented with the clarity needed.
Thx, and always love seeing Martin Rees, who's not only such a wonderful _thinker,_ but also seems to epitomize the classic British _gentleman._
True
Dunno, hard to imagine the _total_ destruction of any intelligent species, even with a nuclear war, custom-made killer microbes, or a rogue AI. And humans especially are a notoriously 'adaptable' species.
I think that the day is coming when they will be a mass die off of humans however, when you consider that primitive man lived in the hottest, the coldest, the driest, the wettest, etc. in environments with only very primitive tools I think, unless there is a major asteroid collision that humans will be around for a very long time. We’re kind of like cockroaches. L O L.
When the only potable food and water sources get contaminated. Then yes we can very much be completely destroyed. Or the sheer panic and anarchy of people killing each other as quickly as possible to secure whatever resources they can. But the end result from every other WMD ensures death one way or another.
We made viral weapons, chemical weapons all with the singular focus of eliminating humans.
Point is. Even IF nuclear war and the resulting small scale regional wars and panic and radioactive poisoning of food and water doesnt kill everyone. Then one of the other WMD's will almost certainly finish up
Its a shitty nihilistic way to think. But it's also very realistic. They've had a long time to think about how to ensure total mutual destruction. And I've only listed the additional methods we DO know about.
It's funny that I once again just watched Seeking A Friend for the End of the World last night. How fitting.
As far as I'm concerned the human race is overrated. We're just not as important to this universe as we'd like to think that we are. And if we were willing to be honest with ourselves we'd concede that we're no better than superfluous to it. Our collective existence is one that just isn't necessary.
We dont know if intelligent life is very rare. We might be alone. Universe is expanding. In the future will impossible to tell its history. Humans are precious to study the evolution of the cosmos, while it still possible. Also, in the far future, our technology will be vital to save the life in this planet, when the sun starts to expand.
@@domcasmurro2417 In reality, we can stop nothing, can't cure illness or poverty, can't change human nature and most of all, when you say "we" this doesn't include anybody but only top 2% of humanity.
Something You Said As far as I’m concerned, you’re an idiot.
@@carlz28 And your reaction is in keeping with what I have come to expect from the human race.
@@carlz28 By the way, what an obvious troll you are, randomly dumping a bunch of abusive comments in the comments section.
When people think about the Fermi Paradox they expect exploration or destructions as if those are the only two options. Sure, it would seem that it takes curiosity to have advancement. But, it's also possible that intelligent life isn't interested in conquest. That once you become intelligent enough that you learn to live with good enough. Or that it takes a long time to go from attempting to dominate nature to living in harmony with it. Or that curios beings may be more interested in exploring inner space.
We expect explorers & exploiters. It could be the case that the galaxy is filled with philosophers and monks.
Good topic!
I've counted to 15, and this seems to be an ordinary number. From this I argue that 30 is likely to be the largest number there is.
This is close to being the weakest argument ever. It is almost not an argument at all.
Enjoy your life. Stop worrying about something you have no control of
This is what you can believe in; at one time I (and a few others) were trained to be the GUARANTOR that when orders from the National Command Authority (NCA) were issued to initiate the launch of weapons that would result in the end of life on this planet, all of us would do EXACTLY THAT. You can believe that.
My uncle harry worked at camp century in greenland
"operation ice worm"
A second strike missle cylo with lots of nukes strapped to ICBM that was designed to launch automatically after russias first nuclear strike.
M.A.D.
Hmm ... Just watched the satirical doomsday flick Don't Look Up the same evening as seeing this episode of CTT. It struck me what Martin Reece said-- Even if there is only a small chance humans might go extinct, that should be motivation enough for us to self-examine our actions and take precautions. In Don't Look Up humans are so greedy and short sighted that no action happens till the doom is staring in their faces, and even that action is crippled by clinging to the old way of thinking about things.
Have to find what makes humanity extraordinary.
Your 1st guest made much more sense (to me) than the 2nd one with his argument tricks.
Does the doomsday argument help explain why there is end of world feeling?
Here's the thing: when you are taking scales of millions of years, "not lasting very much longer", as stated in the video around the seven minute mark, could be thousands or teens of thousands of years.
This is an aspect of cosmology, geology, evolution, and other sciences that have theories that stretch over millions of years that most lay people have trouble with.
At a scale of a billion years, ten thousand years is a "short" time period.
Point being: even if this theory is true, mankind may still have another ten or hundred thousand years of history left in front of it
I think not, we have "evolved" to self destruction , all the players are in place. The scenario was written 2000 years ago or more. What are waiting for the third temple to actually be built? Its already to go, waiting for a man to come in and save the world? Wake up?..
Knowing how far something is along a path you have to know how long that path is. Given the answer to that question is unknown to us at this time how can anyone say where we are along that path, or even if that path has an end?
Arguments based on probability are never certain.
As long as the sun keeps shining and a few humans remember how to make fire and how to make sharp rocks, the human species will survive anything but a global glaciation event.
All species go extinct, humans included.
@@haroldfloyd5518 Eventually, when the sun goes out. But some morphologies are so well adapted they carry on over millennia. Beetles, sharks, rats... if anything has the chops to survive a non-sterilizing global disaster, it's human shaped, domestic primates.
@@con.troller4183 The cockroaches would be my bet for ultimate surface survivor. Deep-ocean vent ecosystems might survive without the sun, for a time.
damn roaches😂@@thedudegrowsfood284
12:30 It's not good to have conversations while we're still on Earth... mind blown 🤯
I find this one the best example I know of as an example of the human ability to over think things. Best thing we could do for ourselves on this planet, and as a species, it to stop patting ourselves on the back on how special we are, and get on with it. Humans have been convinced they are the center of the universe - literally and figuratively - since day one, supported by our major religions, and so forth. It appears to be in our DNA, and no doubt one reason we have been so successful as a species. It's also likely to be what ends us in the near future. Obviously we must get off this planet if we have any hope to survive as species, but frankly, probably not a big loss to the galaxy, much less the universe, if we don't...
THINK OF THIS: So what! If everyone is gone and the world is destroyed there would be nobody to think of how tremendously sad, or depressing, or wasteful everything was. It would just be gone. We'd all go back to where we were before we were born - nowhere - and that would neatly wrap up 'our' worlds. So what! Everything has to end at some point. Whether it's your individual life or all of humanity. So what! Then... something else will pop up that's as smart or smarter than us. It's bound to happen, if it hasn't already in countless pockets of the Universe. And they, too, will perish. So what.
@@rubiks6 I envy you. I wish my intelligence and wisdom could be so devoid of the skepticism and knowledge that utterly destroys the nonsense behind religion. It's just a crutch to hold on to. I agree, my outlook stinks. That's because REALITY isn't designed for me, or you, or humans. We just evolved over so much time, billions of years, from mud, to bacteria, to a vast collection of animals, one of which is us, humans. We are all (even the dumbest people) capable of pondering our fate and we're all aware of our existence and its shortness in the scope of things. So... we've invented all these lovely fairy-tales to make swallowing reality far easier. It's called -- totally delude yourself with bs. Unfortunately, I can't subscribe to religion. And it's not some rebellion. I was this way at 5, at 10, at 20, 30, and today. I always thought it was all nonsense. When people can't explain things... god did it. It's intellectual laziness.
If this was 500 years ago you'd still believe lightning and thunder are messages from God. Right? Admit you'd likely believe that. You'd have no reason not to think it's some angry or special message. Science answered that. Science answered so much that we used to think was 'God'. So which is it? Is perhaps science the way to go (which just means reserve conclusions about the heavens until we can prove xy, and z) or praying and just 'having faith'?"
Which is the way to get answers? Science? Or prayer?
And until I have incontrovertible proof, religion can piss off. In fact, religion is inherently unfair. Who created this 'God'? Who the F put him in charge? I want to bypass this entity, and go to his creator. Is there infinite regression? Are there many levels of God? Who created the creator? That's an unanswerable paradox for you. But science can explain how everything here came to be. Complex things come from simple things, not the other way around.
Sorry... you've probably fell asleep.
Humans as a species will probably live a long time but not forever. I hope the last human, when they realize the end is near, the they understand the legacy of our kind.
"Doomsday," can be viewed from one of two perspectives - that of an APOCALYPSE, thought to mean a complete disaster, or, as an APOCALYPSIS, meaning a rending of the veil to reveal what had previously been concealed. One's perception, depends upon how one is informed.
The argument ultimately fails because no matter how large the urn becomes, every number is chosen. Someone has to choose the number seven, whether there are ten balls or one hundred million. Whether this was an unlikely occurrence or not is irrelevant; someone must pick the unlikely occurrence when every ball is chosen.
I take another view too... Now that humanity is consciously here, is it possible we can argue to create the intention for survival of humanity forever (or much longer than we currently accept), rather than from the fear of extinction (which is mounting)? So yes, we humanity, should alter our behavior and creativive endeavors.
You said Martin Rees! For a moment I thought I heard Kyle Reese!
Kyle is a hero, he ensured humanity would not go extinct!
We are all here conscious, existing at this current time and place and are given the power of choice. We are the generation that can choose to rinse and repeat catastrophic failures while expecting different results without recognizing the insanity of it all or create something sustainable and extraordinary. If anyone wanted an opportunity to feel special or like a chosen one, this is it.
If humanity focused our efforts wisely we could end the chaos by design of short term power and greed and actually design solutions like the Venus Project and thrive.
Are we capable as a species to recognize the power in that choice?
The ultimate failing of the Doomsday Argument is about reference classes. That is, we say humans are likely to go extinct, but the same argument could be made about our family, genus, etc. This gives us different time frames for the same ultimate fate. Cross referencing these times with each other gives inconsistent estimates on extinction time (not surprising). Arbitrarily pick a point in our past and define "human" as any point past that point and you get different extinction rates as well.
Even more perplexing is applying this argument to yourself. Let's say that you are likely to first about the doomsday argument 50% of the way through your life. That means you should only live about twice your age. Given your current age this may seem ridiculous, as you wont live 120 years and probably wont die at 40. Ultimately we may use evidence around us to decide where we likely lie in these distributions of people spoken of for this arguments sake.
Observer selection might include the unique development of humanity over the last 12,000 years since end of most recent ice age. The probabilties of doomsday argument may need to use this shortened timeframe, or even a shorter one.
Concern with survival of humanity, combined with increased focus on evolution, could be sign of increased possibilty of doomsday scenario and that there is something needs to be dealt with to overcome doom soon situation.
8:30 That's just not how statistics work.
You can't just continue to extrapolate downwards from the middle half, to the middle half of the middle half, to the middle half of the middle half of the....until you magically arrive at a "statistically calculated" probability of Any Sigma (beyond that of the first halving, as this works, statistically speaking; and, as such, it seems most likely to me, is the method being used by the authors of this hypothesis to lead astray those who don't know better than to continue to check the logic of the thought process throughout the entire series of its inductions and deductions, and of its missteps of these last two [legitimate] steps in the process) that we are or aren't more (or most) likely to exist in such a narrow, improperly computed, and specifically defined epoch, era, century, cycle, etc.
*Short Answer:* Garbage In; Garbage Out.
It just doesn't work that way, and the doctor should know better than to use numbers and inconsistent logic in such a manner.
*GO BLUEJAYS!!*
Bring it on
We are clearly special.
Does the doomsday argument come from a sense that the probability distribution of human survival is running down? that people do not see how the probability distribution of human survival extends further out?
Makes sense
Tell man in the Stone age that they aren't average. It's subjective, once that was the experience they knew, subjectively they where average and would have thought, what are the odds of me being here and now and being early man. And yet they where...
I have 2 answers to the Fermi Paradox. 1) We are not using the proper means to communicate outside of our solar system. 2) Our dooms day clock is ticking(we will either destroy ourselves or be killed by something else before we can escape Earth).
An intelligent approach to human society, in contrast to technological approach, could shift the probability distribution of human survival outward from doom soon to doom late scenario
It is a fact that the days are getting longer. 3 billion years ago, the day was only 15 hours.
The reason for the rotation slowing down, is tidal friction mainly caused by the moon and the sun.
Gradually, the earth day will lengthen until it is very nearly the same time as the earth year.
The extremes of temperature between the long day and the long night will be unbearable.
Im about 99% sure I'll live and die before the end of the world. I'll take these stats
The thing is we can never predict the exact timing of doomsday as we can never comprehend all the threats from outer space. We might get ripped the next second as any unseen black hole is eying us for its breakfast
Dear Mr. Kuhn,
There is no meaning in all these concepts I analyse, viz. "Free will, consciousness, Truth, ... ", so long as I haven't defined "I" as a particular sequence of particles and specify a definite criterion of proof related to satisfaction of my needs to verify the accuracy of the theory I assume as to the origin of those particles.
There is 1 other possibility, It may never be possible to travel between stars because of the vast distances and harsh conditions. Black Matter could be an impenetrable barrier between systems making interplanetary space travel impossible?
I’m just wondering if we go to Mars for hopes to make a new colony of people because everything is already dead there no water on the surface so what do they plan to do make a living space out of a dome so we don’t have to wear helmets to breathe. So why not just do that same thing here to protect us?
For me, visions were received, but they only could talked about the details they couldn't understand the why or the for what. Doom thinking is the guilty painting our notion
I love discussing this as well as the self sampling assumption
Johnny Morris you need a better hobby.
We're screwing up our environment, and that's the necessity to keep us alive on Earth. The Earth will live without oxygen breathing organs, but we are messing that part up badly
I think these ideas highlight an "impossible" reality. The presumed working age of the whole show(universe) may not be accurate.
Maybe I'm missing something but I can see no reason to conclude that some event is more likely to be in any quarter of a timespan. Given no additional evidence, how can you conclude that an entity that lives 100 years, has already lived for 20, 30 or 75 years ?? How can he conclude that it's present age is more likely to be in the 2nd or 3rd quarter than the 1st or 4th ??
Next time on Closer To The Truth.
If teflon stops your food sticking to the frying pan..
How do they stick the teflon stick to the frying pan?
Join us next time as we take you closer!
Its just another manifestation of our fear of singular death. No one wants to die alone, thus we create group death scenarios. This is a driving force to our creativity and need to do now. This is found to varying degree from one to another, suggesting it is a learned thing
And as Steve Jobs said, creativity just connecting things. Doomers get creative ideas connecting dots
is there a way to overcome observer selection bias? observers today when humanity develop a global perspective?
Of more concern to the average person than doomsday is a high level irradication event of which there are many possibilities.
given that neither humanity nor any other advanced civilization from earth has yet to spread into the galaxy, would this say anything about the development of advanced civilizations elsewhere in the galaxy and even the universe?
can the doomsday argument explain Fermi paradox?
This has and always will be a sloppy argument. Poor premises
What is basis for belief that people living today are average portion of humanity? Might the anthropic principle argue that humanity living today is special; just as humanity, life, earth, sun, galaxy and universe are special? Does technological advancement instill a belief that humanity living today is average?
Nick is correct about everything he said here.
Does the fact that humanity has effectively spread over entire planet through technological advancement contribute to a sense that humanity living today is average? Maybe technology not solve critical social issues so would help to develop intelligent approach to addressing human society?
The asteroid belt has been settling for a few billion years. Now we're landing on them and pushing them around. Yeah; there's really one thing for us to do. The exact type of disaster is moot; the way through it is the same.
to stay average, humanity need to do things to reduce existential risks, spread to other planets, and other?
I take issue here with the use of the term intelligent
Maybe it would help to watch alien civilization for awhile?
Not follow the assertion that we are average in lifespan of humanity. Maybe has something to do with civilization advancing around the world and difficulty expanding into space. Doomsday argument has more relevance for West civilization, less so for East societies.
and then facebook sells an ad! We're fucked!
-
Amongst the first humans..(1 out of 10 vs 1 out of trillions) no way we populate galaxy.. This is similar to the two urn thought experiment (I first heard Bostrum describe). One urn has 10 numbered balls, other has 1 zillion. You pick a ball from unknown urn and get a 7. This is strong evidence you chose from urn with 10 balls. --> I believe the absence of other hypotheses makes this kind of arguing, while perhaps consistent, not applicable. The “Unlikely amongst the first humans” argument ignores scientific and technological discoveries. This argument made in the years 1920 or 2020 would have the same conclusions. Yet we have learned we can put humans on the moon and can build a long term manned space station. Clearly these facts increase the likelihood that humans populate our galaxy. Since the likelihood of humans populating our galaxy has increased over the last 100 years any argument without this implication isn’t applicable.
What’s more likely: we are first intelligent species who will be able (and arguably already is able) to leave a detectable footprint in our galaxy or that a doomsday event is just ahead of us? I think we are first!!!
How can you conflate ‘all the humans who ever lived’ with ‘all the humans who ever lived + all the humans who potentially may live’? Would we even necessarily define our descendants ten thousand years from now, conceivably genetically and cybernetically augmented in ways we can’t even foresee, as human? Absurd as it is, this argument strikes me as worse than pointless, as it is entirely probabilistic and thus devalues the rational human agency that is key to our survival. I have news for Dr. Gott: the Berlin Wall fell due to the sum total of decisions made by the actual humans living in that city, in Europe, the former Soviet Union, and the United States - not because of mathematical games he was playing with himself in 1969.
You can't make a statistical prediction from one sample.
AS EARTH GOES SO DOES MARS.
AMEN
GOODNIGHT
The "balls in urns" hypothesis was the first time I learned about the Doomsday Argument, as explained by Leon Lederman in his book "The God Particle." For credibility sake I should perhaps mention that I have a physics degree from the University of Minnesota. Anyway I find the Doomsday Argument to be frighteningly credible.
The 'balls in the urn' argument is statistically flawed. If I hit number 2 on a roulette wheel, it doesn't mean there are more likely to be 6 numbers in total than 36. No reliable prediction can be made from a sample of one.
The analogy is flawed, because the second urn contains balls that actually exist, not the sum of balls that exist and those that may exist in the future. This is absurd.
In regard to colonizing the galaxy, we don't know if human life can long remain alive separated from mother earth. We are fragile creatures able to exist only in a small envelope of environmental conditions. We are shielded by a magnetic field provided a self sustaining atmosphere in concert with plant life, organic recycling, a water purification system, all perfectly tuned to physical laws. There may be other essential undiscovered planetary forces that cannot be duplicated by technology.
it seems like if we are to give credence to the argument that we are not special, then there should have been previous species on this planet that did things like build cities, visit the moon, and other advanced technological pursuits.
Prog Nosis we don’t know that there hasn’t been.
@@leeimrie1992 Yeah, actually, that was half my point.
Prog Nosis have a look at the first Randall Carlson & Graham Hancock episode on Joe Rogan. Similar topic.
Our doomsday argument should be related probably to our own inhalation thought nuclear weapons,it seem to me no one can't avoid it ,the technology is cutting edge to our own destruction, hopefully I'm wrong
The fact that the doomsday argument has been discussed indicates that there is something there, not sure exactly what.
We all have to die sooner or later.
I think the doomsday argument is for people that have always feared some threat in their life, be it of natural and non natural appearance.
The experience tells us, no fear can hurt you after death.
Is it possible to quantify the likelihood of any one individual's existence? If either of the gametes that united to become the zygote that became any homo sapien that ever was alive were different, that homo sapien would have not existed. In other words, you are individuated from your siblings. And in other words, if your great great great great great grandfather hadn't glanced at your great great great great great grandmother a certain way on a certain night would you be reading this?
Yes I would be here, because back In the day gramps took what he wanted
Now, our species has a 95% chance to last between 5100 and 7.8 million more years, right?
But let's say our species last 7.8 million more years. That would make our species 8 million years old by then, and at that point there'll be a 95% chance it'll last between 205128 and 312 million more years.
So, statistically speaking if we consider the 95% prediction, every day that goes by, the end gets pushed further away?
Look around and tell me with a straight face that humanity WILL be around much longer (as in say a million more years). It's easier for me to believe in the Easter Bunny than that. I think we'll be lucky if we are around in a thousand years, and no, I do not think we will ever colonize huge swaths of outer space. I would not expect us to ever get outside of our solar system for sure.
Why is the volume always lower on the narrative portions of these videos than the interview portions? Bad production value.
Yes, running the audio from these mini-docs through a simple leveler plug-in would fix this problem.
Why delay the inevitable when we know the ultimate fate of the Universe?
yeah,lets nuke everything now🤣🤣🤣
For humanity to become extraordinary may require the conscious use of intelligence beyond intelligent use of technology, to overcome doom soon scenario (great filter obstacle of planetary civilization)
How can intelligence help human society last with the earth and sun?
Omg Robert has a neck!!! :)
Great episode as always!
Your thinking face is great haha. 1:46 Such deep thought going on, ALL the time. Your poor brain is gonna explode
Leslie's book presents the Argument well. From these interview clips you'd completely misunderstand it, as the comments at the end seem to do. I like Closer To Truth but this one was very disappointing.
explain
No we're not .
Lol. Poor Robert😅
But what if humans have been around for almost a million years? (Andon and Fonta having been born 993,595 years ago.) Then the prediction would be at least another 25,000 years but less than 39 million years. I can live with that. 😉👍
Is it close the end depends on humans.
I think that all answers reside in the making of the human brain. When we finally have an advanced and deep knowledge of the tool that is used to know (human brain), we will have all the answers to these speculations. At the end what we perceive may result in a fantastic movie created by our brains, a kind of hologram that grows by itself. I like to think that we cannot deny the fact that a fly survives and reproduces in a world that we cannot imagine. All is based on the makeup of the brain, moved by the instinctual forces of survival and reproduction acted in infinite ways.
What counts as "average?"
Within the median field of the whole system.
@@rubiks6 I guess that's why algebra was invented. Depending on your definition of "invented".
@@rubiks6 It is an interesting debate. What does it mean to be average? Is average perfect? Are we average or perfect?
I would say yes, we are average and we are perfect. Perfect exists within perfection - in the same way that infinity exists within infinity. I believe imperfection also exists within perfection, and zero is there within infinity.
Of course, these are just my thoughts. Maybe some day everyone will actually figure everything out.
@@rubiks6 How can it have no meaning if we are using it to describe something? That goes for the word perfect also. We are all a perfect example of ourselves.
@@rubiks6 Maybe this original post is to be taken as a joke. Division by zero is impossible, an average is very possible. I guess if you're right that average is not philosophical, then the OP would somehow be mistaken. It seems they are referring to a philosophical definition. Because clearly someone who can write that understands the mathematical concept of an average. Again, unless they were joking.
This argument is surely creative. And probably useful. But I find myself closer to Kuhn regarding that perspective.
17:00 Isn't Nick Bostrom one of the perpetrators of the Simulation Hypothesis? And doesn't that hypothesis, if true, invalidate the entire Doomsday Hypothesis, since everything in our known universe would be subject to the whims of whomever it was who wrote the current program?
If so, he’s making pointless hypotheses a specialty.
I'm sorry but in light of Corrona19 the doomsday argument seems more likely
Johnny Morris why are you sorry?
Intelligent use of technology may be ordinary and lead to doom soon scenario, as previous human ancestors have gone extinct even though intelligent use of technology.
this is a very human centric analysis...IE unlike the drake equation which deals which 'civilization' as a class ...of which we are one ...though it is no longer very fashionable I still prefer to drop a bell curve over a finite data set... say the 'IQ' of galactic civilizations at this point in time (it is my assertion that the 'IQ' of a civilization is directly proportional to its sustainability )...with this and a little inspiration from the drake equation it becomes apparent that only 4% of all galactic civilizations existent at this moment have achieved interstellar travel and we are obviously not part of that 4% (I would also assert that a civilization that had achieved interstellar travel would be very selective as to where they go..IE we may not present as a desirable destination) ...this will of course change as we accrue more knowledge and at the moment we achieve interstellar travel (no matter how long it takes) we know we will then be part of that 4 %