Comments on: The Self-Sampling Assumption http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2006/01/the-self-sampling-assumption/ Transhumanism, AI, nanotechnology, the Singularity, and extinction risk. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:08:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jake Cannell http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2006/01/the-self-sampling-assumption/#comment-142067 Jake Cannell Thu, 02 Dec 2010 22:26:20 +0000 http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p=7#comment-142067 "The self-sampling assumption suggests that we should assume we are typical observers out of the class of all observers." A slight nitpick, but it's important to clarify that we should assume only that we are typical observers out of the reference class of all observers self-similar to us. (potentially narrower than the class of all potential 'observers') Defining the reference class properly is the tricky issue. Roland, the doomsday argument depends on the reference class. If the reference class is 'homo sapiens', it only predicts a near-future termination or long steady population decline of homo sapiens, not all observers, which naturally fits the Singularity hypothesis quite nicely, as you point out. The existence or potential of aliens does not directly 'sabotage' the doomsday argument - it merely says that if aliens exist, our civilization is probably not the first. (Likewise for potential computer consciousnesses, whether alien or 'human'). “The self-sampling assumption suggests that we should assume we are typical observers out of the class of all observers.”

A slight nitpick, but it’s important to clarify that we should assume only that we are typical observers out of the reference class of all observers self-similar to us. (potentially narrower than the class of all potential ‘observers’) Defining the reference class properly is the tricky issue.

Roland, the doomsday argument depends on the reference class. If the reference class is ‘homo sapiens’, it only predicts a near-future termination or long steady population decline of homo sapiens, not all observers, which naturally fits the Singularity hypothesis quite nicely, as you point out.

The existence or potential of aliens does not directly ‘sabotage’ the doomsday argument – it merely says that if aliens exist, our civilization is probably not the first. (Likewise for potential computer consciousnesses, whether alien or ‘human’).

]]> By: Accelerating Future » Katja Grace Honors Thesis Now Available http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2006/01/the-self-sampling-assumption/#comment-140798 Accelerating Future » Katja Grace Honors Thesis Now Available Thu, 04 Nov 2010 08:51:25 +0000 http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p=7#comment-140798 [...] we should assume to find ourselves in one of the most abundant universes (we’re typical, after all), we just happen to find ourselves in a universe that is common enough that it’s simple, but [...] [...] we should assume to find ourselves in one of the most abundant universes (we’re typical, after all), we just happen to find ourselves in a universe that is common enough that it’s simple, but [...]

]]> By: Roland http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2006/01/the-self-sampling-assumption/#comment-71 Roland Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:39:21 +0000 http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p=7#comment-71 "If we are typical persons, then it’s likely we were born at a time where most persons are born. In other words, the height of our civilization is likely to be occurring right now. If there are many generations in the future, then why weren’t we born then…?" Because we're approaching the singularity, and are therefore amongst the last "original" humans alive. I would think the Doomsday argument supports the singularity quite nicely. Also, have you thought of the extreme unlikeliness of being a human at all? There are plenty of other conscious animals, and probably aliens and/or computer consciousnesses (in the future). So the Doomsday argument kind of sabotages itself a bit there. “If we are typical persons, then it’s likely we were born at a time where most persons are born. In other words, the height of our civilization is likely to be occurring right now. If there are many generations in the future, then why weren’t we born then…?”

Because we’re approaching the singularity, and are therefore amongst the last “original” humans alive. I would think the Doomsday argument supports the singularity quite nicely.

Also, have you thought of the extreme unlikeliness of being a human at all? There are plenty of other conscious animals, and probably aliens and/or computer consciousnesses (in the future). So the Doomsday argument kind of sabotages itself a bit there.

]]>