276°
Posted 20 hours ago

Doomsday Debunked: Nibiru is Nuts, False vacuum, Big Rip, Asteroid Impacts, Pole Shift, Blood Moons - Debunking Doomsday News

£9.9£99Clearance
ZTS2023's avatar
Shared by
ZTS2023
Joined in 2023
82
63

About this deal

Gott specifically proposes the functional form for the prior distribution of the number of people who will ever be born ( N). Gott's DA used the vague prior distribution: In a nutshell, r/debunking doomsday is a science and reason based subreddit for people who have a more optimistic take on the future of humanity and don’t believe that we’ll all be dead or facing civilizations collapse within the next decade. Any challenges that represent a potential “doomsday” scenario for humanity are open for discussion. These things range from climate change and it’s effects, to geopolitical events such as the Iran crisis which some genuinely feared would cause WW3.

If the total number of humans who were born or will ever be born is denoted by N {\textstyle N} , then the Copernican principle suggests that any one human is equally likely (along with the other N − 1 {\textstyle N-1} humans) to find themselves in any position n {\textstyle n} of the total population N {\textstyle N} so humans assume that our fractional position f = n / N {\textstyle f=n/N} is uniformly distributed on the interval [0,1] before learning our absolute position. This argument has generated a philosophical debate, and no consensus has yet emerged on its solution. The variants described below produce the DA by separate derivations. What a dreadful set of choices when you frame it that way,” Geltzer told me when I put this question to him in another conversation. “The idea of a free-for-all sounds really bad until you see what the purportedly moderated and curated set of platforms is yielding … It may not be blood onscreen, but it can really do a lot of damage.” If Leslie's figure [5] is used, then approximately 60 billion humans have been born so far, so it can be estimated that there is a 95% chance that the total number of humans N {\textstyle N} will be less than 20 × {\textstyle \times } 60 billion = 1.2 trillion. Assuming that the world population stabilizes at 10 billion and a life expectancy of 80 years, it can be estimated that the remaining 1140 billion humans will be born in 9120 years. Depending on the projection of the world population in the forthcoming centuries, estimates may vary, but the argument states that it is unlikely that more than 1.2 trillion humans will ever live.Why didn't they change it in the Cuban Missile Crisis?” Wellerstein says. “Well, because it was one guy, and also the Cuban Missile Crisis happened before they had a chance to update it.” The risk of atomic escalation in Ukraine brings the world closer to nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Daniel Zimmer, a post-doctoral researcher at the Stanford Existential Risk Initiative, tells Inverse. “It makes sense that the hands would be moved up an additional ten seconds closer to midnight for 2023.”

Kahn and his colleagues helped invent modern futurism, which was born of the existential dread that the bomb ushered in, and hardened by the understanding that most innovation is horizontal in nature—a copy of what already exists, rather than wholly new. Real invention is extraordinarily rare, and far more disruptive.

Good news at the brink

The doomsday argument does not say that humanity cannot or will not exist indefinitely. It does not put any upper limit on the number of humans that will ever exist nor provide a date for when humanity will become extinct. An abbreviated form of the argument does make these claims, by confusing probability with certainty. However, the actual conclusion for the version used above is that there is a 95% chance of extinction within 9,120 years and a 5% chance that some humans will still be alive at the end of that period. (The precise numbers vary among specific doomsday arguments.) But is a public relations metaphor conceived more than half a century ago still an effective device for communicating risk in the contemporary world? Was it ever? The premise of the argument is as follows: suppose that the total number of human beings that will ever exist is fixed. If so, the likelihood of a randomly selected person existing at a particular time in history would be proportional to the total population at that time. Given this, the argument posits that a person alive today should adjust their expectations about the future of the human race because their existence provides information about the total number of humans that will ever live. f {\textstyle f} is uniformly distributed on (0,1) even after learning the absolute position n {\textstyle n} . For example, there is a 95% chance that f {\textstyle f} is in the interval (0.05,1), that is f > 0.05 {\textstyle f>0.05} . In other words, one can assume with 95% certainty that any individual human would be within the last 95% of all the humans ever to be born. If the absolute position n {\textstyle n} is known, this argument implies a 95% confidence upper bound for N {\textstyle N} obtained by rearranging n / N > 0.05 {\textstyle n/N>0.05} to give N < 20 n {\textstyle N<20n} .

The unconditioned n distribution of the current population is identical to the vague prior N probability density function, [note 1] so: It is possible to sum the probabilities for each value of N and, therefore, to compute a statistical 'confidence limit' on N. For example, taking the numbers above, it is 99% certain that N is smaller than 6 trillion. P ( N ∣ n ) = P ( n ∣ N ) P ( N ) P ( n ) . {\displaystyle P(N\mid n)={\frac {P(n\mid N)P(N)}{P(n)}}.}It's just not the case that any organization or any person, however prestigious, can simply say, ‘hey guys, the world is in a bad place. Could you please fix it?” he says. “The problems are too big. The world is too complicated.” In previous eras, U.S. officials could at least study, say, Nazi propaganda during World War II, and fully grasp what the Nazis wanted people to believe. Today, “it’s not a filter bubble; it’s a filter shroud,” Geltzer said. “I don’t even know what others with personalized experiences are seeing.” Another expert in this realm, Mary McCord, the legal director at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, told me that she thinks 8kun may be more blatant in terms of promoting violence but that Facebook is “in some ways way worse” because of its reach. “There’s no barrier to entry with Facebook,” she said. “In every situation of extremist violence we’ve looked into, we’ve found Facebook postings. And that reaches tons of people. The broad reach is what brings people into the fold and normalizes extremism and makes it mainstream.” In other words, it’s the megascale that makes Facebook so dangerous. The constant, k, is chosen to normalize the sum of P( N). The value chosen is not important here, just the functional form (this is an improper prior, so no value of k gives a valid distribution, but Bayesian inference is still possible using it.) Since Gott specifies the prior distribution of total humans, P(N), Bayes' theorem and the principle of indifference alone give us P(N|n), the probability of N humans being born if n is a random draw from N:

Asda Great Deal

Free UK shipping. 15 day free returns.
Community Updates
*So you can easily identify outgoing links on our site, we've marked them with an "*" symbol. Links on our site are monetised, but this never affects which deals get posted. Find more info in our FAQs and About Us page.
New Comment