3 ms·
Science fiction is great and all, but I'd rate this probability more like the inverse of stupid large numbers brought to us by Knuth's up-arrow notation.
by jojobas 3y ago
Science fiction is great and all, but I'd rate this probability more like the inverse of stupid large numbers brought to us by Knuth's up-arrow notation.
- upwardbound 3y agoCould be! Your estimate is as valid as mine. I suppose that to approach a topic like this, we can reason in the classical-logic manner of the ancient Greeks and others who sought to understand their universe without yet having the instruments to make necessary observations. What I mean is, without our civilization having seen evidence either way yet, the question of what is a good prior probability is only able to be informed through non-empirical means, such as the philosophy of science (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_problem ), philosophy of knowledge (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle ), and theology (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds ). Another similar topic about which we must reason without having yet made any applicable observations is the question of whether our universe is a simulation. If it is, then it is possible that a sufficiently well-constructed prayer (message to the system administrators) could have causal effects.
- jojobas 3y agoSorry, I can't help but perceive this as intellectual cowardice. "There has to be something that'll make our collective life not as finite and pointless as the evidence we have suggests!".