Exactly. It's an incredibly DUMB, overly-linear, impossibly obtuse way to "predict" anything. It's like if I said: 'So, yeah, OK... humanity has somewhere between 3 and 3000 years left of existence." This is the lamest 'prediction' ever. Totally meaningless. Nothing can be done with such preposterously vague data points. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
That is based on the assumption that we live in a typical nuclear weapons erea civilization. What this tells us is that if we want to improve our odds of long-term survival it would be good to become a post nuclear weapons civilization.
Well . . . He's discussing things that are in active existence and when those things will end, not potential existence of this or that/those thing(s) and it's/their potential use/effects.
"Doomsday Argument" piqued my interest, but I'm only half joking when I say that _Closer To Truth_ is the program that asks deep questions of highly knowledgeable people, then spends up to 15 minutes not answering them. I've watched dozens of them over the last half decade, but lately I've stopped watching most of them. It's obviously not difficult to think of questions that are hard or impossible to answer. I just find these forays into the universe's weirdness rather unsatisfying. Like Feynman, I can live without knowing all the answers, just as I can live without knowing all the questions. My main interests that are relevant to the series are religion, cosmology, QM & GR, and I've just about exhausted RUclips's offerings on the topics. Oh well. I'm not slagging the series, just pointing out that it has its limitations, and even non-physicists (like me) can arrive at those limits.
There's an implicity subjetivism in his theory that completely invalidates it. The Berlim Wall example he gives only seems to make sense because his conversation with his friend happened when the wall had that specific age. He could very well have made that travel with his friend in the late 70's or 80's and his theory wouldn't be applicable. Something else's existence duration probability can not rely on the time the observer happen to think about it.
The fact that so many people has asked whether our human civilization is coming to a conclusion indicated that it is. A better question is: How long can a failed civilization continue when the species that created that civilization destroys everything it comes in contact with including it's own home. By any measurement, Man is a failed species. What should happen to such a species? If Man were not emotionally connected to this issue, people would all say the same thing. The species deserves to perish as soon as possible so that the damage it has caused is kept to a minimum. But we're not talking about some alien species are we? We're talking about us. So, we will muddle on, making all kinds of excuses for our behavior until that fateful day comes and what is left of us has to accept finally what has happened. I don't envy them.
That's absurd. Many people have believed nonsense that didn't come to pass for all of human existence. Just because many people believe something doesn't make it true.
This whole calculation presupposes that the probability distribution of the lifetime of humanity is flat. That is basically the most uninformed guess we can make. I would prefer us to look at the reality of the situation instead and base our predictions on the facts available.
A newborn baby (say, one hour old) is 95% likely to die within 92.3 seconds and 39 hours (somewhat under two days). A 100 year-old is 95% likely to live for at least two and a half years, and at most 3,900 years. Great argument!
Copernican argument is only relevant when you have a sample size of one. Since you have ignored most of your available data you have not made a copernican prediction, don't be surprised if it's wrong.
@@waerlogauk But in that case isn't it also wrong to apply it to the Berlin Wall as if there were no other walls built before it? Or can every instance of something be "a sample of one" so for example people predicting "with 95% confidence, this video will not exist more than 39 hours from now" do not have to examine the entire history of videos being uploaded to the web?
@@notanemoprog The 'Berlin Wall' is obviously not just any wall so the typical wall lifespan would be no guide. Perhaps if you can find other comparable politically inspired walls a non Copernican estimate could be better. As for RUclips videos, sample sizes between one and the entire history are possible (larger sample = better confidence).
@@waerlogauk the great wall of china. To an observer 600 years ago the 95% prediction longevity scale of it would be vastly different than an observer today. Apply this to any great monument of history. The Tajmahal, sphynx, ect.
Reflection is key. Unfortunately, it isn't common to find within humanity. And even worse... it may be too late for society to recover from its lack of insight. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In Time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
About Risks: The greatest risk to the individual comes from other humans. The risks facing society are war, crime, over population and climate change. The greatest social risk is injustice. Civilization as a concept is at risk due too human conflict getting out of hand. The greatest risk facing humankind is the destruction of our essential ecosystem due too over population. This is an issue which needs to be addressed and can be addressed by improving the economic system. But, first, we must come to a common understanding of essential knowledge about our world. The greatest source of risk is individuals in positions of power holding on to false beliefs.
About The Commons: Tragedy of the Commons: a dilemma in which multiple individuals acting independently in their own self-interest can ultimately destroy a shared limited resource even where it is clear that it is not in anyone's long term interest for this to happen. This concept applies to Capitalism in general. If each person optimizes for their own good, we will destroy the bounty provided by the creator. We need government to put constraints on the use of natural resources to ensure their continued availability.
@@cloud9847, we can talk about when with no evidence. That does make for interesting discussion. In my mind, what is important is the how and why. The very purpose of knowledge is to make human lives better. If we can postpone our demise by rational thinking, that may also be a good thing to discuss.
@@gracerodgers8952 It's not a matter of shame, it's simply there wasn't anything particularly complicated said here; he simply talked about the implications of applying the principle of mediocrity (or as he put it, the Copernican principle) to the question of whether we are more likely close to the beginning of our civilization or its end. What specifically did you find hard to understand?
@@gracerodgers8952 In a nutshell - we really need to diversify and inhabit other planets, like Mars, if we want to have a real chance at long term survival. Think millions of years. There is a slight chance we are at the end of our 'chances' to get off this planet before random chance extinction level event hits us but more than likely we have time still. @ B.G. Only an asshole says that when someone is clearly joking about not understanding the subject. Don't be an asshole, B.G.
@b.g. Makes sense that grace would get offended when you rightfully point out it’s an easy concept to understand (in fact, the guest kind of beat the point to death): Less intelligent people are quick to take offense where none is given.
I've watched many videos in this wonderful series. Dr. Kuhn has given me the opportunity to hear the views of many of the best minds in the western world. I have been introduced to many ideas and will be forever greatful. Many "truths" have been unveiled and I've concluded that there will always be some "truths" my mind is too limited to appreciate. Would we really be happy if we knew it all? It is what it is and becomes what we make it. For me, that is as good as being able to use my mind and manipulate things at the quantum level.
Let's test this theory. At the time I'm writing this comment, this video is 1 hour old. So, with 95% confidence, this video will not exist more than 39 hours from now. That will be 1/9/2023 at 1 am Pacific time. Something is wrong with this argument and at a minimum I think his basic Copernicum assumption is being misapplied in almost all of his examples.
@@notanemoprog You can always say every test that we devise is going to be an outlier. That is an admission that the way this is applied is wrong. It wouldn't take very many of these tests or a long period of time to have high confidence that his confidence interval is wrong when applied in this way.
So basically this formula has a problem And that is if you lucky or unlucky enough to be in that 5 percent the formula simply not gonna work in this case your comment probably commented in that 5 percent
Yeah, I suppose that Copernican theory would work if you know nothing at all about the object that you're observing. But I imagine you can say a lot about a wall that keeps people apart politically,and you can make predictions based on previous walls that have existed on the earth that keep people apart politically. So what I'm saying is, I don't think it would be acceptable to not attach probabilities of the expected lifetime of that wall.
0:53 “ We do not live in a special location at the centre of the universe”. I disagree. As far as we know our location may or may not be at the centre of the universe, but from all we have learnt about the cosmos it sure looks as if our location is rather special. Everywhere else we know of appears extremely hostile to life.
This topic is not worthy of discussion. I really don't believe that serious scientists today are considering the possibllity of "end times" (Biblical term) other than possible nuclear war and the possible (perhaps probable) disaster due to long term climate change. Neither one, nuclear or climate change will be "end times" for humans. The Copernican Principle as defubed here is flawed. Herman Bondi named his so-called principle after Copernicus. It should be the "Bondi Principle." It's not a "principle," it's a hypothesis, a claim. Copernicus developed the heliocentric model of the universe with circular orbits. Copernicus' name should not be associated with this flawed claim. (Although I agree with some of it.) "Bondi and Thomas Gold used the Copernican principle to argue for the perfect cosmological principle which maintains that the universe is also homogeneous in time, and is the basis for the steady-state cosmology. However, this strongly conflicts with the evidence for cosmological evolution mentioned earlier: the universe has progressed from extremely different conditions at the Big Bang, and will continue to progress toward extremely different conditions, particularly under the rising influence of dark energy, apparently toward the Big Freeze or Big Rip. Since the 1990s the term has been used (interchangeably with "the Copernicus method") for J. Richard Gott's Bayesian-inference-based prediction of duration of ongoing events, a generalized version of the Doomsday argument." [There is nothing "magical" about Bayesian statistics as some so believe..]
Does he know that Homo erectus didn't die out? Some lineages did. Others, like Homo sapiens, are literally still alive right now. Seems weird to take our place in the timeline of Homo sapiens and say we're in danger. Does he take into account the probability of subsets of humans evolving into a distinct species? That's how all species we know of got here, and why he can say that species survive for a certain time span. I agree with his conclusion, but not his method. I hope such obvious problems were picked up in peer review!
In his hypothesis it's irrelevant because homo sapiens are the only ones who survived. If you consider more, you'd have to reframe it into a different question.
@@WaxPaper it seems to me you might as well consider the most ancient distinct ancestor (which if not already a term, should be MADA) with any other extant species. Then we can consider all individuals of that lineage, and use our place based on that to work out some type of distribution of probable ends for the lineage. That puts the age of our distinct lineage at about 12 million years (roughly). I don't know how that would affect his model, or how birth rates, life expectancies, artificial fertilisation or anything akin to human-computer singularities would be addressed by this model.
It does seem that DNA does run out of viability sooner or later and a good measure of that would be the length of time already lived, for the species in question. Sometimes I think the giant tortoises have all the answers.
First of all, the notion that we are not situated in a special place in the universe or galaxy or hosted by a special star, is without merit. We just don't know enough to make that assumption.
@@jsar5409 If such times and places existed then wouldn't they be a separated dimensionally from us? Everything at large scale that we see and measure from our perspective ought to match the physics that we are accustomed to if I understand his argument correctly and what he is trying to contrast. It seems like a bit of a strawman in one sense. But one could also argue that we do exist in a special time and place given the unique circumstances that have come together to make intelligent life possible on Earth. Not only the conditions of Earth, but the whole layout of our solar system with gas giant planets that limit the number of asteroids that come within our cycle around the sun.
@@jeffamos9854 humans are the only species saying anything. No other species has enough brains to enable them to put two words together into a sentence.
@@jffryh why not regress to ants who have even tinier brains. It is know ants solve complex problems using pheromones, sound and touch. Also live in all the land masses much like humans. One species cannot claim to be not typical.
"Each period of 1200 years begins and ends with a catastrophe; human evolution expands and grows in the space of two scourges. Fire and water, the agents of all material mutations, work together during the same amount of time and each on an opposite region of the Earth."
seems that most civilizations tend to last the shorter durations; the larger distribution of durations result from the fact that here and there civilization (s) contribute something that has a longer duration in the natural record? so even though there can be a wide spread of expected longevity from the 5% to 95% range from somewhere around 50% middle, unless there is something else more durable that a civilization can contribute, will tend to last only one of the shorter durations around 5 to 20%?
None of his math works and does demonstrate how rationalism can only go so far. We have been around a wee longer than 200,000 years and how long we last is not based, in any way shape or form, on maths or statistics. How long we last depends, entirely, on what we do with what we have. There's an old saying "up or out"... this is entirely related to human existence. I wonder if continued disregard for how global humanity will help us get up and out or not? In evolution, what happened to the dodo bird? If we do not master ourselves, and curb the avarice of the worst of us do we really believe we'll get out? What if we must cure ourselves of some thing, at least to an extent that it can no longer be the human paradigm as it exists today and has since before flood Legends, before we earn our way out of Quarantine? Does the Universe have a self protection mechanism to ensure the probability matrix doesn't get infected? Are these things we should talk about, around our Tribal fires.
"God" is the Life itself, organizing, transforming, realizing itself. For that we are something like "living building bricks". Life transforms itself through steady doom and steady deaths, this is how it grows! Even mankind is for sure only a transitory moment in evolution. But Life never dies, it's always growing. And it is able to pull itself even out of the nothing, so it is eternal! God, the Life is in us! "Apocalypse" means the steady doom of the existing through which "God" arrives, means through which Life is transforming and realizing itself! "God" means the point in far far future where Life will have fully realized itself, with all the promised capabilities.
Assumption: past indicators are relevant to future conditions. If we had done these calculations before, the time would have been much shorter. But if we do them after, the time is much longer. Therefore, this conjecture is mainly based on your current point in time with little to no reference about the future. Is it ok at guessing? Yes. Is this a verifiable prediction model for the longevity of all things? Certainly not.
Maybe people should at best unify themselves in order to survive in the long run. Who knows how much and many are going wasted because of the tribal concept we live on.
I get the logic based on probability. But I feel like the definition of “special” is vague with respect to the Copernican Principle. I’m not sure this works for stuff like how long will the human species last. Humans are extremely variable, emotional, and violent. But we are also super smart. Between 5,000 and 7.8 million years is an almost meaningless range.
colonizing the undersea would be less dangerous and cheaper. that's how higher organisms survived the great dinosaur extinction I think. the mammals spent most of their lives in the sea until they adapted to full time.
A lot of replies here are presenting cases with large known sample sizes and by choosing a non-typical example convincing themselves they have debunked the Copernican Principle. When the entire point is that the Copernican Principle gives you a starting point if you only have one sample and it is at least plausible that the example you have is typical. Pick an example where either of these is not true and you are in a different discussion.
We have now figured out how to combat incoming asteroids with the DART program and surveillance technologies have allowed us to pre-emptively detect any incoming asteroids. So one less thing to worry about.
A couple of indications of the doomsday are in Hadith Gabriel: The slave-girl will give birth to her mistress and master (surrogacy), that you will find barefooted, destitute goat-herds vying with one another in the construction of magnificent buildings (Abu Dhabi).
*The ironic truth about doomsday* What always pisses me off, is not the fact that there probably will be a doomsday; but the arguments about who's fault doomsday is when it happens. I hear people say that this is the end times and that standards are slipping, and that society is getting worse and worse etc; and that crime is rising and that children are getting more rebellious etc. But what is going to cause doomsday when it happens? Is it criminals spraying the walls with graffiti? Is it the fact that Daddy doesn't believe in spanking his kids? Is that the fact that there are too many human rights? No... It is nuclear bombs, which the authorities have the power to detonate. It is global warming, which the authoritarian supporting politically right-wing people deny exists. The ones that want to oppose the left trying to save our planet, are the authoritarians that are destroying it with all the plastic in the oceans and use of oil and other environmental pollutants. Don't you find that just a tad ironic? Maybe we need to be even more rebellious to stop doomsday happening!!!! Who are you to say if there is a God, what his way is; the authoritarian's way? Do you think killing all the Jews in the gas chambers in the way of this god? That Jew killing was an act of authoritarianism! They call authoritarianism the way of God, but it would actually be an abuse of God; and that is a one way ticket strait to Hell!
... Even if you are taking the longer of those estimations, that doesn't rule out the collapse of the modern world and a mass die-off of humans. Not extinct but civilization becomes extinct scenarios...
That was the mother of all WAGs as to human species longevity. We have perhaps a 50/50 we exist in the next 300-500 years if we don't get off this planet is my guess, based on the direction we are going.
The chance of colonising another body in the solar system is practically zero with our current technology, resources and geo political siutation. It isnt worth devoting resoures too unless you are in a much more advanced and stable global civilisation. The chance of thrn going further than the solar system is even more remote without the discovery of hitherto unknown physics.
I guess I'm thick ,I would have thought there would have been some factoring in of climate change and enviromental issues potentially leading to our demise ,instead we get buck rogers.
With this theory mars would be colonized by Martians from other solar systems. You could try the Phoenix cycle (Archaix) or Randall's archeological/celestial cycle of cataclysms and of course there is God's Geometric teachings through Thoth and his pyramids that also includes Hindu records. There is so much to become aware of 👀
It's true that this guest's "predictions" are far, far, FAR too linear, basic, and assume absolutely no catastrophic nor geometric changes along any moment of the timeline. The truth is that although "intelligent" hominids have been around for 120k+ years, it's impossible to argue that technology and innovation factored into any more of it than a TINY, inconsequential blip or slice. In other words, even though DATA HAS BEEN LOST, it must be automatically accepted that the missing data is meaningless until it is rediscovered organically (as if it never existed in the first place). So, innovation and changes of the latter years of society have been FAR more productive than those of Earth's distant past. Therefore, the differences between 20xx vs. 19xx is astounding, but the difference between year 540 and 640 were pretty much meaningless in the grand scheme. This guest assumed a "flatline" in that regard. A linear prediction is a flawed one for anything except basic math. 🙄 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
Are humans or human like creatures going to be around for ever? 99% of living creatures that have ever existed have become extinct for one reason or another. So my answer is humans wont be around forever, for one reason or another.
4:24 Flaw right there....he's arbitrarily picked a point in our past.....my past goes right back to the first life, that's what I evolved from... not some artificial point. Then theres the guy who made this claim 199,000 years ago..... and the guy little after that....eventually a few of them will be right.... Then there's this Neanderthal nonsense....If Neanderthal didn't survive then neither did homo sapiens...both species interbred, its incorrect to say one of them is no more, I carry DNA from both, Im not one or the other... And africans with no Neanderthal DNA have other no homosapien add mixtures ...there are no pure homo sapiens any more..... trying to define what we are and give it a start point is just as big a problem is deciding when we're no more.....he glosses over it.
You got it........ We are currently collapsing into a medieval state due to energy restriction. Within next 20 years we will get hit by massive x class solar event..... Stone Age time. Enjoy
I'm probably being a thickoid but I really don't follow this argument at all, sounds to me as if it's based on alot of unfounded assumptions but as I say it might be beyond my tiny mind.
Yeah right, it is easy making predictions retrospectively, on the basis of the outcomes that you know. There is also a problem of his choice of a starting point that determines the variable. Even a fool knows that everything ends eventually, but even a greater fool claims the knowledge of the timing of the imminent end. False premises only lead to false conclusions, predictions. No science in his propositions......
for every second of time that passes those lower and upper limits of the 95% probability of survival of our species will be higher and that 95% time span grows linearly, so essentialy with just a little bit of luck now (an even less luck as time passes) we will never go extinct !
"Never" is an expression of infinity therefore your assertion, on the face of it, is totally absurd. The extinction of Earth, the Cosmos, & thus humanity is assured by astrophysicists.
We are fast approaching the singularity (2045 according to Kurzweil). It is the singularity that will irreversibly transform human life and even create a new nonbiological, autonomous and super intelligent machine species.
.. as a German Biologist - this is purely about Domestication and Calhoun: The Behavioral Sink - when some remote tribes survive the Techno Zone Self Extinction some humans may survive for some time making any “technology” strictly taboo the more we indulge in the Comfort Conditioning of avoiding any “pain” and over reward we self extinct catalytic cascade unstoppable
@@raginald7mars408 I tell you what; why don't you go live in the jungle without technology if you're so confident that this is a more stable platform than a technological society? The fact that you're making your argument using technology makes a mockery of it.
...JESUS said, no one, not even HE knows, only the FATHER knows the exact moment of the end. It is fun to run the math, and calculate, however only our Heavenly FATHER Knows, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...
_"WE ARE IN HEAVEN"_ Fun fact: Heaven is a cube, twelve thousand stadia (1,380miles or 2,220 kilometers) on a side. "And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal." Revelation 21:16
This principle applies assuming that we are in a time that is "nothing special". I dont think we live in "ordinary" times anymore, at least since the invention of nuclear weapon. In addition to this, I think there are other reasons for thinking so, lets say of a social nature. There has never been a period in the history of the World in which changes occurred so rapidly as today, both technical/scientific, cultural, interpersonal, Religious, economic. It can be considered that the World is not very stable. It seems to me that there are reasons to think that we are much closer than farther (as long as it happens at all).
Ecological transformation and independence from non-regenerative resources will be one of the greatest steps of mankind, even of Life itself on this planet. There is no end. But human beeing is only transitory moment in evolution of life!
In order for mankind to have a better chance to survive we would probably have to inhabit at least two different planets at around the same time because of an inevitable interplanetary war which could destroy or at least make one planet inhabitable.
Soon as someone invokes repetitive natural selection did it and that deep time answers the question my respect for their credibility drops . The fact that we are so influenced as a society by things that cause paradolia of the mind like industrial revolution that made us see mechanism everywhere we looked then now computation is driving us to see engineering and code every where is a cognitive bias that we have to combat. Follow the evidence forget the predetermined models. Act like you don't have deep time or any excuses like natural selection ot god. It's synonymous beliefs system excuses.
Doomsday is actually Doomsnight, and this doom can happen when your Godless soul returns to a cold dark state of nothingness (hell) but, when you have faith in a loving God, it would be a Bright Day for your soul as it returns to Heaven - our Original Home.
That's the kind of thinking that will end everything. The end of belief in ancient God myths would be the most effective way to increase humanity's chance of long term survival.
He's really ate up with evolutionary mythology lol 😆 this is the most arrogant human centric subjective theory ever created. It's depending on human perspective of something advancing forward when we know entrop is relative to the universe and nothing can do such a thing. It's all good we have no choice but to choose some type of extreme to worship from. Time is in his head. James Webb is proving space/time isn't isotropic. Their is no rasin bread balloon apology. We may could model that it's like fireworks and the chemistry of galaxy morphology of matter is isotropic though.
I'll start by saying I have a partially collapsed lung and massive muscle tearing along the whole right side of my body from a bad mountain biking accident. I will then proceed to tell you that I am currently in the bathroom. From here I will ponder to myself " why do I leave such comments"? Moving along I should mention that I'm low on groceries and I'll finish up by saying- Google " The Story Of Two Wolves ". Oh, and the world will actually end in 17 days.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
By this argument, the time until the next use of nuclear weapons is between 2 and 3042 years from now.
Exactly. It's an incredibly DUMB, overly-linear, impossibly obtuse way to "predict" anything.
It's like if I said: 'So, yeah, OK... humanity has somewhere between 3 and 3000 years left of existence." This is the lamest 'prediction' ever. Totally meaningless. Nothing can be done with such preposterously vague data points.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
That is based on the assumption that we live in a typical nuclear weapons erea civilization. What this tells us is that if we want to improve our odds of long-term survival it would be good to become a post nuclear weapons civilization.
Well . . . He's discussing things that are in active existence and when those things will end, not potential existence of this or that/those thing(s) and it's/their potential use/effects.
I think it's a load of horse $h!+
5:50 the sample on which this prediction rests is very small but it still counts as a possibility with a low confidence value...
"Doomsday Argument" piqued my interest, but I'm only half joking when I say that _Closer To Truth_ is the program that asks deep questions of highly knowledgeable people, then spends up to 15 minutes not answering them. I've watched dozens of them over the last half decade, but lately I've stopped watching most of them. It's obviously not difficult to think of questions that are hard or impossible to answer. I just find these forays into the universe's weirdness rather unsatisfying. Like Feynman, I can live without knowing all the answers, just as I can live without knowing all the questions. My main interests that are relevant to the series are religion, cosmology, QM & GR, and I've just about exhausted RUclips's offerings on the topics. Oh well. I'm not slagging the series, just pointing out that it has its limitations, and even non-physicists (like me) can arrive at those limits.
Lol when you mentioned religion....after that preamble.
I wonder if it's unsatisfying because when watching something called ""closer to truth" we're setting ourselves up for disappointment.
There's an implicity subjetivism in his theory that completely invalidates it. The Berlim Wall example he gives only seems to make sense because his conversation with his friend happened when the wall had that specific age. He could very well have made that travel with his friend in the late 70's or 80's and his theory wouldn't be applicable. Something else's existence duration probability can not rely on the time the observer happen to think about it.
Exactly!
Spoken like someone not educated enough to understand his point.
@@papaclanc Indeed, that's a possibility. Although you not being educated enough to understand mine seems more likely.
@@Rafael__
Mutt..
The fact that so many people has asked whether our human civilization is coming to a conclusion indicated that it is. A better question is: How long can a failed civilization continue when the species that created that civilization destroys everything it comes in contact with including it's own home. By any measurement, Man is a failed species. What should happen to such a species? If Man were not emotionally connected to this issue, people would all say the same thing. The species deserves to perish as soon as possible so that the damage it has caused is kept to a minimum. But we're not talking about some alien species are we? We're talking about us. So, we will muddle on, making all kinds of excuses for our behavior until that fateful day comes and what is left of us has to accept finally what has happened. I don't envy them.
That's absurd. Many people have believed nonsense that didn't come to pass for all of human existence. Just because many people believe something doesn't make it true.
I love the argument. I will start making calculations like this asap😎
5,000+ videos.. are we any closer to the truth? Probably not.
I would say that we are... Closer to truth
True.
Closer every day
Lol!
I am 😃.
This whole calculation presupposes that the probability distribution of the lifetime of humanity is flat. That is basically the most uninformed guess we can make. I would prefer us to look at the reality of the situation instead and base our predictions on the facts available.
A newborn baby (say, one hour old) is 95% likely to die within 92.3 seconds and 39 hours (somewhat under two days). A 100 year-old is 95% likely to live for at least two and a half years, and at most 3,900 years.
Great argument!
Copernican argument is only relevant when you have a sample size of one. Since you have ignored most of your available data you have not made a copernican prediction, don't be surprised if it's wrong.
@@waerlogauk But in that case isn't it also wrong to apply it to the Berlin Wall as if there were no other walls built before it? Or can every instance of something be "a sample of one" so for example people predicting "with 95% confidence, this video will not exist more than 39 hours from now" do not have to examine the entire history of videos being uploaded to the web?
@@notanemoprog The 'Berlin Wall' is obviously not just any wall so the typical wall lifespan would be no guide. Perhaps if you can find other comparable politically inspired walls a non Copernican estimate could be better. As for RUclips videos, sample sizes between one and the entire history are possible (larger sample = better confidence).
@@waerlogauk Thanks!
@@waerlogauk the great wall of china. To an observer 600 years ago the 95% prediction longevity scale of it would be vastly different than an observer today. Apply this to any great monument of history. The Tajmahal, sphynx, ect.
Superb... provocative interview..👏
Reflection is key. Unfortunately, it isn't common to find within humanity. And even worse... it may be too late for society to recover from its lack of insight.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In Time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
About Risks:
The greatest risk to the individual comes from other humans.
The risks facing society are war, crime, over population and climate change.
The greatest social risk is injustice. Civilization as a concept is at risk due too human conflict getting out of hand.
The greatest risk facing humankind is the destruction of our essential ecosystem due too over population. This is an issue which needs to be addressed and can be addressed by improving the economic system. But, first, we must come to a common understanding of essential knowledge about our world.
The greatest source of risk is individuals in positions of power holding on to false beliefs.
About The Commons:
Tragedy of the Commons: a dilemma in which multiple individuals acting independently in their own self-interest can ultimately destroy a shared limited resource even where it is clear that it is not in anyone's long term interest for this to happen.
This concept applies to Capitalism in general. If each person optimizes for their own good, we will destroy the bounty provided by the creator. We need government to put constraints on the use of natural resources to ensure their continued availability.
super glad you stayed on topic with a fun video...
@@cloud9847, we can talk about when with no evidence. That does make for interesting discussion. In my mind, what is important is the how and why. The very purpose of knowledge is to make human lives better. If we can postpone our demise by rational thinking, that may also be a good thing to discuss.
I totally, completely,100 percent understood every word. Really.🤔
It wasn't hard to understand.
@@b.g.5869 Shame on me,huh?
@@gracerodgers8952 It's not a matter of shame, it's simply there wasn't anything particularly complicated said here; he simply talked about the implications of applying the principle of mediocrity (or as he put it, the Copernican principle) to the question of whether we are more likely close to the beginning of our civilization or its end.
What specifically did you find hard to understand?
@@gracerodgers8952 In a nutshell - we really need to diversify and inhabit other planets, like Mars, if we want to have a real chance at long term survival. Think millions of years. There is a slight chance we are at the end of our 'chances' to get off this planet before random chance extinction level event hits us but more than likely we have time still.
@ B.G. Only an asshole says that when someone is clearly joking about not understanding the subject. Don't be an asshole, B.G.
@b.g.
Makes sense that grace would get offended when you rightfully point out it’s an easy concept to understand (in fact, the guest kind of beat the point to death): Less intelligent people are quick to take offense where none is given.
I've watched many videos in this wonderful series. Dr. Kuhn has given me the opportunity to hear the views of many of the best minds in the western world. I have been introduced to many ideas and will be forever greatful. Many "truths" have been unveiled and I've concluded that there will always be some "truths" my mind is too limited to appreciate. Would we really be happy if we knew it all?
It is what it is and becomes what we make it. For me, that is as good as being able to use my mind and manipulate things at the quantum level.
Really, for me, it's like someone put 16 jigsaw puzzles in a bag,mixed up,then handed it to me and said,"put this together.
Let's test this theory. At the time I'm writing this comment, this video is 1 hour old. So, with 95% confidence, this video will not exist more than 39 hours from now. That will be 1/9/2023 at 1 am Pacific time. Something is wrong with this argument and at a minimum I think his basic Copernicum assumption is being misapplied in almost all of his examples.
It really is the most stupid application of random probability. 🙄
Those other 5% didn't just magically disappear because you like trolling, sweetie
@@notanemoprog You can always say every test that we devise is going to be an outlier. That is an admission that the way this is applied is wrong. It wouldn't take very many of these tests or a long period of time to have high confidence that his confidence interval is wrong when applied in this way.
Apply the rule to all videos on youtube and see whether it works on average.
So basically this formula has a problem
And that is if you lucky or unlucky enough to be in that 5 percent the formula simply not gonna work
in this case your comment probably commented in that 5 percent
Yeah, I suppose that Copernican theory would work if you know nothing at all about the object that you're observing. But I imagine you can say a lot about a wall that keeps people apart politically,and you can make predictions based on previous walls that have existed on the earth that keep people apart politically. So what I'm saying is, I don't think it would be acceptable to not attach probabilities of the expected lifetime of that wall.
Copernican principle is a way of getting a statistical prediction when you have a sample of one.
Except humans have the ability to bring about their own demise. And also to spread out among the stars (if we last that long).
Imagine the scenario in which spreading among the stars leads to actual demise. James Cameron to direct
0:53 “ We do not live in a special location at the centre of the universe”.
I disagree.
As far as we know our location may or may not be at the centre of the universe, but from all we have learnt about the cosmos it sure looks as if our location is rather special. Everywhere else we know of appears extremely hostile to life.
This topic is not worthy of discussion.
I really don't believe that serious scientists today are considering the possibllity of "end times" (Biblical term) other than possible nuclear war and the possible (perhaps probable) disaster due to long term climate change. Neither one, nuclear or climate change will be "end times" for humans.
The Copernican Principle as defubed here is flawed. Herman Bondi named his so-called principle after Copernicus. It should be the "Bondi Principle." It's not a "principle," it's a hypothesis, a claim. Copernicus developed the heliocentric model of the universe with circular orbits. Copernicus' name should not be associated with this flawed claim. (Although I agree with some of it.)
"Bondi and Thomas Gold used the Copernican principle to argue for the perfect cosmological principle which maintains that the universe is also homogeneous in time, and is the basis for the steady-state cosmology. However, this strongly conflicts with the evidence for cosmological evolution mentioned earlier: the universe has progressed from extremely different conditions at the Big Bang, and will continue to progress toward extremely different conditions, particularly under the rising influence of dark energy, apparently toward the Big Freeze or Big Rip.
Since the 1990s the term has been used (interchangeably with "the Copernicus method") for J. Richard Gott's Bayesian-inference-based prediction of duration of ongoing events, a generalized version of the Doomsday argument." [There is nothing "magical" about Bayesian statistics as some so believe..]
Does he know that Homo erectus didn't die out? Some lineages did. Others, like Homo sapiens, are literally still alive right now. Seems weird to take our place in the timeline of Homo sapiens and say we're in danger. Does he take into account the probability of subsets of humans evolving into a distinct species? That's how all species we know of got here, and why he can say that species survive for a certain time span. I agree with his conclusion, but not his method. I hope such obvious problems were picked up in peer review!
He doesn’t. Doesn’t know/understand zoological taxonomy and evolution
In his hypothesis it's irrelevant because homo sapiens are the only ones who survived. If you consider more, you'd have to reframe it into a different question.
@@WaxPaper it seems to me you might as well consider the most ancient distinct ancestor (which if not already a term, should be MADA) with any other extant species. Then we can consider all individuals of that lineage, and use our place based on that to work out some type of distribution of probable ends for the lineage. That puts the age of our distinct lineage at about 12 million years (roughly). I don't know how that would affect his model, or how birth rates, life expectancies, artificial fertilisation or anything akin to human-computer singularities would be addressed by this model.
It does seem that DNA does run out of viability sooner or later and a good measure of that would be the length of time already lived, for the species in question. Sometimes I think the giant tortoises have all the answers.
First of all, the notion that we are not situated in a special place in the universe or galaxy or hosted by a special star, is without merit. We just don't know enough to make that assumption.
How is he defining what a special time and place is?
Hes is not. He is assuming most times and places on average are average
Special would be something with unique purpose, meaning, position, time etc. None of which we have reason to believe we occupy.
@@jsar5409 If such times and places existed then wouldn't they be a separated dimensionally from us? Everything at large scale that we see and measure from our perspective ought to match the physics that we are accustomed to if I understand his argument correctly and what he is trying to contrast. It seems like a bit of a strawman in one sense. But one could also argue that we do exist in a special time and place given the unique circumstances that have come together to make intelligent life possible on Earth. Not only the conditions of Earth, but the whole layout of our solar system with gas giant planets that limit the number of asteroids that come within our cycle around the sun.
The thing is, humans are not typical among species.
That’s what other species are saying about there species.
@@jeffamos9854 humans are the only species saying anything. No other species has enough brains to enable them to put two words together into a sentence.
@@jffryh frogs say ribbit ribbit. Maybe you just don’t understand what there saying.
@@jeffamos9854 if you want to claim non-human animal intelligence, you might do better to go with dolphins, chimps, or octopuses, rather than frogs.
@@jffryh why not regress to ants who have even tinier brains. It is know ants solve complex problems using pheromones, sound and touch. Also live in all the land masses much like humans. One species cannot claim to be not typical.
"Each period of 1200 years begins and ends with a catastrophe; human evolution expands and grows in the space of two scourges. Fire and water, the agents of all material mutations, work together during the same amount of time and each on an opposite region of the Earth."
That's not evolution is entropy is winning
Btw a mutation is a deformation or negative loss. It's a pain in the butt when trying to ague advancements or improvements in anything.
@@dadsonworldwide3238 the earth is stable in its level of entropy. The earth is not a closed system.
@@dadsonworldwide3238 Most mutations are benign and negative ones are eliminated by natural selection. That is how we've gotten to where we are.
@@tschorsch you can only substract from what is already
seems that most civilizations tend to last the shorter durations; the larger distribution of durations result from the fact that here and there civilization (s) contribute something that has a longer duration in the natural record? so even though there can be a wide spread of expected longevity from the 5% to 95% range from somewhere around 50% middle, unless there is something else more durable that a civilization can contribute, will tend to last only one of the shorter durations around 5 to 20%?
If the Egyptians could build impervious pyramids why didn’t they build an impervious library?
None of his math works and does demonstrate how rationalism can only go so far. We have been around a wee longer than 200,000 years and how long we last is not based, in any way shape or form, on maths or statistics. How long we last depends, entirely, on what we do with what we have. There's an old saying "up or out"... this is entirely related to human existence. I wonder if continued disregard for how global humanity will help us get up and out or not? In evolution, what happened to the dodo bird? If we do not master ourselves, and curb the avarice of the worst of us do we really believe we'll get out? What if we must cure ourselves of some thing, at least to an extent that it can no longer be the human paradigm as it exists today and has since before flood Legends, before we earn our way out of Quarantine? Does the Universe have a self protection mechanism to ensure the probability matrix doesn't get infected? Are these things we should talk about, around our Tribal fires.
I love J Richard Gott III and am so glad that he's doing more appearances. Love the Doomsday Argument, as it makes perfect sense.
Rambling gibberish
@@maxwellsimoes238 exactly !
This is probably more than 10 yrs old. Gott is 75 and looks a bit younger in this interview.
@@infinitemonkey917 Either that, or the time machine was used
what would be estimated longevity for civilization based on written records? 300 years to 114,000 years?
So far the longest we know of is Japan at about 1700 years. Average across time is likely a couple hundred years
@@jsar5409 I figured 43.5 to 66,300 yrs for Japan.
"God" is the Life itself, organizing, transforming, realizing itself. For that we are something like "living building bricks". Life transforms itself through steady doom and steady deaths, this is how it grows! Even mankind is for sure only a transitory moment in evolution. But Life never dies, it's always growing. And it is able to pull itself even out of the nothing, so it is eternal! God, the Life is in us! "Apocalypse" means the steady doom of the existing through which "God" arrives, means through which Life is transforming and realizing itself! "God" means the point in far far future where Life will have fully realized itself, with all the promised capabilities.
As observers of the 58th Super Bowl in the year 2024 we can conclude that the last Super Bowl will likely take place between the year 2043 & 2298 🏈
Assumption: past indicators are relevant to future conditions.
If we had done these calculations before, the time would have been much shorter. But if we do them after, the time is much longer.
Therefore, this conjecture is mainly based on your current point in time with little to no reference about the future.
Is it ok at guessing? Yes.
Is this a verifiable prediction model for the longevity of all things? Certainly not.
Maybe people should at best unify themselves in order to survive in the long run. Who knows how much and many are going wasted because of the tribal concept we live on.
I’m sceptical bout his method…
why? Please, explain
sound like a pretty plausible theory to one that has played Star control 2 and what not for years
As usual, statistics can be used to prove anything you want.
Billionaries should have their fortunes taken for enviromental preservation and space colonization as soon as the polar caps start to collapse!
Imagine thinking we should steal from people and it be justified lol
@@jsar5409 new era Robin Hood.
I get the logic based on probability. But I feel like the definition of “special” is vague with respect to the Copernican Principle. I’m not sure this works for stuff like how long will the human species last. Humans are extremely variable, emotional, and violent. But we are also super smart. Between 5,000 and 7.8 million years is an almost meaningless range.
human civilization based on federal / central government would have expected longetivity of about 12 years to 4660 years?
Still too long
There is no end time for we are the eternal one.
I am reminded of a Mark Twain quote listening to this. 🤨
Who’s to say that we aren’t colonized already?
colonizing the undersea would be less dangerous and cheaper. that's how higher organisms survived the great dinosaur extinction I think. the mammals spent most of their lives in the sea until they adapted to full time.
It wouldn't work for most extinction level event scenarios. And it's not cheap and would require just as much energy as living in space.
A lot of replies here are presenting cases with large known sample sizes and by choosing a non-typical example convincing themselves they have debunked the Copernican Principle. When the entire point is that the Copernican Principle gives you a starting point if you only have one sample and it is at least plausible that the example you have is typical.
Pick an example where either of these is not true and you are in a different discussion.
Search for "NASA wants future humans to find this time capsule in space"
We have now figured out how to combat incoming asteroids with the DART program and surveillance technologies have allowed us to pre-emptively detect any incoming asteroids. So one less thing to worry about.
human civilization based on UN international government would have expected longevity of 3.5 years to about 1463 years?
Still far too long even on the lower estimate
Apocalypticism is as old as recorded history and non-historical storys
if the cosmos is speeding up at some point the bubble will pop
A couple of indications of the doomsday are in Hadith Gabriel: The slave-girl will give birth to her mistress and master (surrogacy), that you will find barefooted, destitute goat-herds vying with one another in the construction of magnificent buildings (Abu Dhabi).
That's all nonsense
*The ironic truth about doomsday*
What always pisses me off, is not the fact that there probably will be a doomsday; but the arguments about who's fault doomsday is when it happens. I hear people say that this is the end times and that standards are slipping, and that society is getting worse and worse etc; and that crime is rising and that children are getting more rebellious etc. But what is going to cause doomsday when it happens? Is it criminals spraying the walls with graffiti? Is it the fact that Daddy doesn't believe in spanking his kids? Is that the fact that there are too many human rights? No... It is nuclear bombs, which the authorities have the power to detonate. It is global warming, which the authoritarian supporting politically right-wing people deny exists. The ones that want to oppose the left trying to save our planet, are the authoritarians that are destroying it with all the plastic in the oceans and use of oil and other environmental pollutants. Don't you find that just a tad ironic? Maybe we need to be even more rebellious to stop doomsday happening!!!! Who are you to say if there is a God, what his way is; the authoritarian's way? Do you think killing all the Jews in the gas chambers in the way of this god? That Jew killing was an act of authoritarianism! They call authoritarianism the way of God, but it would actually be an abuse of God; and that is a one way ticket strait to Hell!
... Even if you are taking the longer of those estimations, that doesn't rule out the collapse of the modern world and a mass die-off of humans. Not extinct but civilization becomes extinct scenarios...
That was the mother of all WAGs as to human species longevity. We have perhaps a 50/50 we exist in the next 300-500 years if we don't get off this planet is my guess, based on the direction we are going.
The chance of colonising another body in the solar system is practically zero with our current technology, resources and geo political siutation. It isnt worth devoting resoures too unless you are in a much more advanced and stable global civilisation. The chance of thrn going further than the solar system is even more remote without the discovery of hitherto unknown physics.
I wonder if Sapiens will ever see it's successor.
Assuming we dont kill each other. If you count time since "civilization" it is much less than the biological estimate
I guess I'm thick ,I would have thought there would have been some factoring in of climate change and enviromental issues potentially leading to our demise ,instead we get buck rogers.
Must be nice to make crazy predictions that none of us will ever observe or know about therefore whats the point of this topic all together?
This guy says all that, while, at the same time, being a Christian and, thus, believing in Heaven, Hell, etc. Does he suffer from split personality?
With this theory mars would be colonized by Martians from other solar systems. You could try the Phoenix cycle (Archaix) or Randall's archeological/celestial cycle of cataclysms and of course there is God's Geometric teachings through Thoth and his pyramids that also includes Hindu records. There is so much to become aware of 👀
It's true that this guest's "predictions" are far, far, FAR too linear, basic, and assume absolutely no catastrophic nor geometric changes along any moment of the timeline.
The truth is that although "intelligent" hominids have been around for 120k+ years, it's impossible to argue that technology and innovation factored into any more of it than a TINY, inconsequential blip or slice. In other words, even though DATA HAS BEEN LOST, it must be automatically accepted that the missing data is meaningless until it is rediscovered organically (as if it never existed in the first place). So, innovation and changes of the latter years of society have been FAR more productive than those of Earth's distant past.
Therefore, the differences between 20xx vs. 19xx is astounding, but the difference between year 540 and 640 were pretty much meaningless in the grand scheme. This guest assumed a "flatline" in that regard. A linear prediction is a flawed one for anything except basic math. 🙄
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
Are humans or human like creatures going to be around for ever? 99% of living creatures that have ever existed have become extinct for one reason or another. So my answer is humans wont be around forever, for one reason or another.
4:24 Flaw right there....he's arbitrarily picked a point in our past.....my past goes right back to the first life, that's what I evolved from... not some artificial point.
Then theres the guy who made this claim 199,000 years ago..... and the guy little after that....eventually a few of them will be right....
Then there's this Neanderthal nonsense....If Neanderthal didn't survive then neither did homo sapiens...both species interbred, its incorrect to say one of them is no more, I carry DNA from both, Im not one or the other... And africans with no Neanderthal DNA have other no homosapien add mixtures ...there are no pure homo sapiens any more..... trying to define what we are and give it a start point is just as big a problem is deciding when we're no more.....he glosses over it.
While we all go, "God" comes. The one in the end is the same who was in the beginning!
I want to live in interesting times. Bring on armageddon.
You got it........
We are currently collapsing into a medieval state due to energy restriction. Within next 20 years we will get hit by massive x class solar event..... Stone Age time.
Enjoy
the sun becoming weaker is the suitable calculation
ja you can make that mathematical "trick" with any event in history - that´s magic for dummies...
The numbers are nonsense!
Human species start date seems too arbitrary.
I'm probably being a thickoid but I really don't follow this argument at all, sounds to me as if it's based on alot of unfounded assumptions but as I say it might be beyond my tiny mind.
He was there in 69? How old is he, In his 70's?
This was recorded years ago.
Yeah right, it is easy making predictions retrospectively, on the basis of the outcomes that you know. There is also a problem of his choice of a starting point that determines the variable.
Even a fool knows that everything ends eventually, but even a greater fool claims the knowledge of the timing of the imminent end.
False premises only lead to false conclusions, predictions.
No science in his propositions......
Mr. Gott really should invest in a big red nose and large red shoes.
for every second of time that passes those lower and upper limits of the 95% probability of survival of our species will be higher and that 95% time span grows linearly, so essentialy with just a little bit of luck now (an even less luck as time passes) we will never go extinct !
"Never" is an expression of infinity therefore your assertion, on the face of it, is totally absurd. The extinction of Earth, the Cosmos, & thus humanity is assured by astrophysicists.
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 really??? 😧
His argument is completely wrong. Please Robert, check his misanderstanding of random probabilities interviewing a probabilty specialist.
SpaceX.
Not even wrong.
Lots of talking, very little info communicated.
We are fast approaching the singularity (2045 according to Kurzweil). It is the singularity that will irreversibly transform human life and even create a new nonbiological, autonomous and super intelligent machine species.
You're funny, not funny "ha-ha" but funny in the head. But at least you admit, by your "handle" that anything you say is B.S.
@@d.r.tweedstweeddale9038 Winner, winner chicken dinner.
.. as a German Biologist -
this is purely about
Domestication and
Calhoun: The Behavioral Sink
- when some remote tribes survive the
Techno Zone Self Extinction
some humans may survive for some time
making any “technology” strictly taboo
the more we indulge in the Comfort Conditioning
of avoiding any “pain”
and over reward
we self extinct
catalytic cascade unstoppable
Krank.
Great comment
@@b.g.5869 you are sunk already
@@raginald7mars408 I tell you what; why don't you go live in the jungle without technology if you're so confident that this is a more stable platform than a technological society?
The fact that you're making your argument using technology makes a mockery of it.
@@b.g.5869
those incapable
only know ad hominem
learn reading
then writing
Super Smart
...JESUS said, no one, not even HE knows, only the FATHER knows the exact moment of the end. It is fun to run the math, and calculate, however only our Heavenly FATHER Knows, respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...
Does he get paid for doing this?
AS some one who as studied life for 47 years. THIS IS THE END TIME. THE END OF HATE, IGNORANCE, AND EVIL. WE ARE IN HEAVEN WELCOME TO LOVE..
_"WE ARE IN HEAVEN"_
Fun fact: Heaven is a cube, twelve thousand stadia (1,380miles or 2,220 kilometers) on a side.
"And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal."
Revelation 21:16
This principle applies assuming that we are in a time that is "nothing special".
I dont think we live in "ordinary" times anymore, at least since the invention of nuclear weapon.
In addition to this, I think there are other reasons for thinking so, lets say of a social nature.
There has never been a period in the history of the World in which changes occurred so rapidly as today, both technical/scientific, cultural, interpersonal, Religious, economic. It can be considered that the World is not very stable.
It seems to me that there are reasons to think that we are much closer than farther (as long as it happens at all).
Ecological transformation and independence from non-regenerative resources will be one of the greatest steps of mankind, even of Life itself on this planet. There is no end. But human beeing is only transitory moment in evolution of life!
Keep dreaming in technicolour & ignoring reality.
If the goal is to explore everything even if it does not make any sense then you will end up much farther from the Truth.
basing human civilization on something that's been around many millions or billions of years would greatly increase the likelihood of longer duration?
In order for mankind to have a better chance to survive we would probably have to inhabit at least two different planets at around the same time because of an inevitable interplanetary war which could destroy or at least make one planet inhabitable.
Soon as someone invokes repetitive natural selection did it and that deep time answers the question my respect for their credibility drops .
The fact that we are so influenced as a society by things that cause paradolia of the mind like industrial revolution that made us see mechanism everywhere we looked then now computation is driving us to see engineering and code every where is a cognitive bias that we have to combat.
Follow the evidence forget the predetermined models. Act like you don't have deep time or any excuses like natural selection ot god. It's synonymous beliefs system excuses.
We Neanderthals are still here!
Doomsday is actually Doomsnight, and this doom can happen when your Godless soul returns to a cold dark state of nothingness (hell) but, when you have faith in a loving God, it would be a Bright Day for your soul as it returns to Heaven - our Original Home.
That's the kind of thinking that will end everything. The end of belief in ancient God myths would be the most effective way to increase humanity's chance of long term survival.
@@tschorsch that is not the reality happening in this real world
Nonsense. You can't compare humans to any other species that has ever existed on the Earth.
Wrong. Neanderthals and other common ancestors likely had consciousness equaling ours.
Stupid …mathematics
Can't listen to him, he is drawing AA and EE with voice it's annoying..
He's really ate up with evolutionary mythology lol 😆 this is the most arrogant human centric subjective theory ever created. It's depending on human perspective of something advancing forward when we know entrop is relative to the universe and nothing can do such a thing.
It's all good we have no choice but to choose some type of extreme to worship from.
Time is in his head. James Webb is proving space/time isn't isotropic.
Their is no rasin bread balloon apology.
We may could model that it's like fireworks and the chemistry of galaxy morphology of matter is isotropic though.
J. Richard Gott.
Another liar being interviewed who has no idea how he's created as an AI that is eternal.
Brad you are off your meds. Please get the help the you need.
Come on Elon, let's do this Mars deal already!
Elon Musk FTW!
Go away Muskultist.
@@tschorsch You sound triggered, sweetie.
I'll start by saying I have a partially collapsed lung and massive muscle tearing along the whole right side of my body from a bad mountain biking accident. I will then proceed to tell you that I am currently in the bathroom. From here I will ponder to myself " why do I leave such comments"? Moving along I should mention that I'm low on groceries and I'll finish up by saying- Google " The Story Of Two Wolves ".
Oh, and the world will actually end in 17 days.