>First, I don't accept the notion that each person can view himself as a
>randomly chosen individual. There has been no selection procedure such
>as we normally think of in random choice. ...
>Looking at it in Bayesian terms, I am going to live out my lifetime here,
>this year, whether the human race self destructs in a few years or not.
>Both outcomes are equally consistent with my life experience. So I don't
>see how the knowledge that I am alive should cause me to change my
>estimate of the likelihood of these two outcomes.
In Bayesian terms, the fact that you see a certain population history
up to your moment in life tells you something. But what exactly it
tells you I'm not so sure. Neither Gott nor Leslie have put together
a precise Bayesian model which implies the conclusions they think that
their analysis implies. Leslie even thinks that Bayesian analysis
isn't up to this task. There is a good opening here for some careful
thinking.
>What is the most interesting period to simulate? Why, the Transition,
>of course: those brief millenia when we went from being paleolithic
>cavemen to posthuman gods.
This assumes there is some asymptotic god level which we won't reach
beyond. What if we just keep on growing?
Robin D. Hanson hanson@hss.caltech.edu http://hss.caltech.edu/~hanson/