4 ms·
Maybe we can apply the anthropic principle to feel a bit better about it. I.E. we observe the universe to be the way it is because if it were any different, we
by moffkalast 3y ago
Maybe we can apply the anthropic principle to feel a bit better about it. I.E. we observe the universe to be the way it is because if it were any different, we wouldn't be here to observe it.
We could be alive now because it's the statistically most likely time for most humans to be alive, right between the time it took us to slowly explode in population and the time we implode and make ourselves extinct. Otherwise we'd more likely live further in the future since if we continue growing then there's vastly more humans that will live then. We could very well be living in the best time ever, full stop. Food for thought.
- dmarchand90 3y agoI used to be more worried about an anthropic argument that we are living in end times. (If population growth is exponential then you are most likely to be born near end times) But, most people have already died https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12288594/#:~:text=Assuming%20a%20constant%20growth%20rate,whom%205.5%25%20are%20alive%20today https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12288594/#:~:text=Assuming%2.... And population growth is shrinking. So I think we're safe
- moffkalast 3y agoWell the variance on it is definitely huge by human timespan standards, but I think it's not entirely unlikely that most humans that have ever lived will live between something like 1700-2200 AD. Could be 1700-3500 as well if we're lucky. It's also entirely possible that ancient Greeks had a discussion like this and decided that they'll all be dead soon, and couldn't have been more wrong, so the error bars are obviously massive when dealing with only an arbitrary fraction of the distribution.