4 ms·

> it seems reasonable to consider the possibility that we may still be in a position of non-omniscience. Not even reasonable, in fact, this is one of the premi

> it seems reasonable to consider the possibility that we may still be in a position of non-omniscience. Not even reasonable, in fact, this is one of the premises of my statement. If we knew for sure how many intelligent species have spread intergalactically, we would not need to be making estimates. For the clarification of doubt, where I say 'no evidence', I am referring purely to the absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. I am not sure about representing it formally mathematically, and I am certain that it is not the only probabilistic calculation possible, there may well be better models, but consider the following: I reach into a bag, and I pull out a die. The die has a one on it. We have the following assumptions: - The bag contains at least 1 die - Dice can have 1 or more sides (let's call them 4D dice) - All dice have at least one face with a 1 on it Here, the faces represent the number of intelligent species spreading intergalactically. The specific number drawn represents humanity's place in the sequence. Let's initially start with 1, single sided die. - What is my probability of drawing a 1 sided die? 1 out of 1. - What is my probability of being position number 1 on the die? 1 out of 1. So, if there is only 1 die with only 1 face in the bag, we know for certain we must draw a 1. Now let's imagine adding dice. We add one more. - What is my probability of drawing a 1 sided die? 1/2 - What is my overall probability of drawing a 1? There are two 'ones' and one 'two', so 2/3 Let's add another. - What is my probability of drawing a 1 sided die? 1/3 - What is my overall probability of drawing a 1? There are three 'ones', two twos, and one three, so 3/6 This is enough to start to see the pattern, we can see that regardless of the number of dice we add, there will always be more 1s than any other number. We can throw 10 000 dice into the bag. There will be 10 000 opportunities to be 'first', 9 999 opportunities to be 'second' and so on. Because we don't know how many dice are in the bag, 'one' is a better guess than 'ten thousand'. [0]: It's worth noting we're not travelling intergalactically (or even interstellarly) just yet.

mistermann 4y ago
> For the clarification of doubt, where I say 'no evidence', I am referring purely to the absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. Technically, you are referring to your model: a) it is possible that evidence can exist but a human does not have knowledge of it b) it is possible that people have differences of opinions on what constitutes evidence, because that is largely a subjective matter, and humans are famous for being unable to reliably distinguish between objective and subjective matters > I am not sure about representing it formally mathematically, and I am certain that it is not the only probabilistic calculation possible, there may well be better models, but consider the following... I think my (highly unusual) point of contention here is other than you intuit - your earlier comment ([emphasis] mine): >> [The] probability, [without any other information to the contrary], of us being 'first' [is] higher than [the] probability of us being 'second' or any other possible point on the list. You have made a prediction about reality based on "a" model, but speak (and perhaps believed, at runtime) that it is "the" model. As for your argument, while it's all true, I cannot see how this can cause reality itself to be a particular way. Statistics and thought experiments (~~propaganda~~ journalism, ideologies and ideology ~marketing, etc) can (and do[1]) certainly cause reality to appear a certain way, but that is something very different. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect [1] https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-heuristic-2795235 https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-heuristic-2795235
- d1sxeyes 4y ago
  Your argument is that my model is flawed because it might not be correct? That's a bit post-hoc. If I observe 10 coin tosses, and all ten come up heads, and based on that I devise a model that coin tosses always come up heads, then my model will be incorrect, the correct model is still 1/2. Unless of course, the universe is deterministic, in which case the correct model will actually be a list. Or in case it turns out that coins land heads due to a fluctuation in the coin-toss field which we are not currently aware of, so the correct model would involve first observing the coin-toss field. Obviously a model does not cause reality to be any particular way. A model merely tries to describe and predict. Models get refined as new evidence or data is added to them. Until we come across intelligent life in the universe, our model is incredibly basic, and yet we have nothing better.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > Your argument is that my model is flawed because it might not be correct? Not quite - I am noting that you speak as if you are not working from a model. "For the clarification of doubt, where I say 'no evidence', I am referring purely to the absence of evidence, not evidence of absence." As I noted, you do not actually know if there is no evidence absolutely, you are describing the absence of evidence in your possession/knowledge. > That's a bit post-hoc. If I observe 10 coin tosses, and all ten come up heads, and based on that I devise a model that coin tosses always come up heads, then my model will be incorrect, the correct model is still 1/2. Sure, but in this case we are not discussing a well known domain (coins), we are discussing a not known at all domain (aliens). And even here in your simple thought experiment, there are facts that you do not have knowledge of (a rigged coin, that you do not realize is rigged (according to your description) because "based on that I devise a model that coin tosses always come up heads"). > Unless of course, the universe is deterministic... Another matter that is not known, but broadly believed to be known. > Obviously a model does not cause reality to be any particular way. Generally agree, but even here it's not that simple. Models can cause reality to appear a certain way (consistent with the model), and perceptions of reality are a very important component of reality (very often more important than "actual" reality, in that belief > truth when it comes to human action, which is what determines the end state of physical reality). > A model merely tries to describe and predict. Models get refined as new evidence or data is added to them. Disagree. Some models are built to deceive - see: propaganda/journalism/etc. > Until we come across intelligent life in the universe, our model is incredibly basic, and yet we have nothing better. Better models are possible: for example, it is possible to make epistemic status(es) a first class concept. Early 21st century humans tend to very much not like epistemology and logic, but it is there for our usage if we should ever change our ways.

mistermann 4y ago

> For the clarification of doubt, where I say 'no evidence', I am referring purely to the absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. Technically, you are referring to your model: a) it is possible that evidence can exist but a human does not have knowledge of it b) it is possible that people have differences of opinions on what constitutes evidence, because that is largely a subjective matter, and humans are famous for being unable to reliably distinguish between objective and subjective matters > I am not sure about representing it formally mathematically, and I am certain that it is not the only probabilistic calculation possible, there may well be better models, but consider the following... I think my (highly unusual) point of contention here is other than you intuit - your earlier comment ([emphasis] mine): >> [The] probability, [without any other information to the contrary], of us being 'first' [is] higher than [the] probability of us being 'second' or any other possible point on the list. You have made a prediction about reality based on "a" model, but speak (and perhaps believed, at runtime) that it is "the" model. As for your argument, while it's all true, I cannot see how this can cause reality itself to be a particular way. Statistics and thought experiments (~~propaganda~~ journalism, ideologies and ideology ~marketing, etc) can (and do[1]) certainly cause reality to appear a certain way, but that is something very different. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect [1] https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-heuristic-2795235 https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-heuristic-2795235

d1sxeyes 4y ago
Your argument is that my model is flawed because it might not be correct? That's a bit post-hoc. If I observe 10 coin tosses, and all ten come up heads, and based on that I devise a model that coin tosses always come up heads, then my model will be incorrect, the correct model is still 1/2. Unless of course, the universe is deterministic, in which case the correct model will actually be a list. Or in case it turns out that coins land heads due to a fluctuation in the coin-toss field which we are not currently aware of, so the correct model would involve first observing the coin-toss field. Obviously a model does not cause reality to be any particular way. A model merely tries to describe and predict. Models get refined as new evidence or data is added to them. Until we come across intelligent life in the universe, our model is incredibly basic, and yet we have nothing better.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Your argument is that my model is flawed because it might not be correct? Not quite - I am noting that you speak as if you are not working from a model. "For the clarification of doubt, where I say 'no evidence', I am referring purely to the absence of evidence, not evidence of absence." As I noted, you do not actually know if there is no evidence absolutely, you are describing the absence of evidence in your possession/knowledge. > That's a bit post-hoc. If I observe 10 coin tosses, and all ten come up heads, and based on that I devise a model that coin tosses always come up heads, then my model will be incorrect, the correct model is still 1/2. Sure, but in this case we are not discussing a well known domain (coins), we are discussing a not known at all domain (aliens). And even here in your simple thought experiment, there are facts that you do not have knowledge of (a rigged coin, that you do not realize is rigged (according to your description) because "based on that I devise a model that coin tosses always come up heads"). > Unless of course, the universe is deterministic... Another matter that is not known, but broadly believed to be known. > Obviously a model does not cause reality to be any particular way. Generally agree, but even here it's not that simple. Models can cause reality to appear a certain way (consistent with the model), and perceptions of reality are a very important component of reality (very often more important than "actual" reality, in that belief > truth when it comes to human action, which is what determines the end state of physical reality). > A model merely tries to describe and predict. Models get refined as new evidence or data is added to them. Disagree. Some models are built to deceive - see: propaganda/journalism/etc. > Until we come across intelligent life in the universe, our model is incredibly basic, and yet we have nothing better. Better models are possible: for example, it is possible to make epistemic status(es) a first class concept. Early 21st century humans tend to very much not like epistemology and logic, but it is there for our usage if we should ever change our ways.