interesting concept

[Master Shake]

found this while crusing the web, figured id post it here and see what others thought about it
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/p....html#doomsday

[Jazza]

i agree, i find this concept very interesting

my old handle on 2+2 was jimdmcevoy, and my first post was this

from memory everyone said that it's BS for various reasons, but i wouldn't mind re-opening discussion on the topic in this thread

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
i agree, i find this concept very interesting

my old handle on 2+2 was jimdmcevoy, and my first post was this

from memory everyone said that it's BS for various reasons, but i wouldn't mind re-opening discussion on the topic in this thread

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the argument is invalid for trivial reasons. The argument rests on the assumption that one can choose a random number from a set with an unknown range. This obviously cannot be done. The Doomsday argument asserts that my "number" is random (in the everyday sense of not being special), and then makes the (unwarranted) assumption that it is random in the mathematical sense.

GG

[Jazza]

[ QUOTE ]
and then makes the (unwarranted) assumption that it is random in the mathematical sense

[/ QUOTE ]

please explain why this is unwarrented

[gasgod]

It is unwarranted because there is no way to choose a number randomly unless you know the range.

Suppose I asked you to choose a number at random. How would you go about doing that? Unless I specified the range (R), you have no way of insuring that the number you pick is both within the specified range, and randomly chosen. Your method, to be random in the mathematical sense, must give every number in the range an equal probability (1/R) of being chosen. If you don't know R, then your method cannot be random.

GG

[Jazza]

i still don't follow, i don't see why we have to know the range

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose I asked you to choose a number at random. How would you go about doing that?

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree i cannot choose a random number without knowing the range, but again i still don't see how this is relevent

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
my old handle on 2+2 was jimdmcevoy, and my first post was this


[/ QUOTE ]

I followed that thread closely, and commented on it. My old handle was eldynamite.

GG

[WhiteWolf]

I'm not a probablitity expert, but it seems the problem with the argument rests in the assumption that your birth number is "random," when it is really not (the chance that you have birth number 1 trillion is exactly 0), but the Bayesian calcuation used to show it's conclusion depends on your birth number being truly random.....

[Jazza]

IMO you could use this argument to say cards are not random, once you are dealt 72, the odds you have pocket aces is exactly 0

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO you could use this argument to say cards are not random, once you are dealt 72, the odds you have pocket aces is exactly 0

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly true! No card is random. The process of selecting cards can be a random process, however.

GG