Talk:Doomsday argument
 | While you may consider this article depressing or disturbing, please remember this page is only for discussing improvements to the article. Wikipedia is not censored, but articles do have to meet certain standards. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 400 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Page is out of date?
editThis source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/04/quantifying-human-existence/ says that around 117 billions humans have ever lived and I thought this was common knowledge; the article relies on the wrong premise that only 60 billion humans have been born so far. Use: YlmbWP 8 Oct 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by YlmbWP (talk • contribs) 17:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Elonite rebuttal omitted?
editCurrent article fails to mention the simplest rebuttal constructed thus far: Elon Musk's admitted aim of creating a multi-planetary human species in the foreseeable future. By disseminating Homo Sapiens throughout the Solar System first and then among the stars and galaxies, it becomes ever less likely that any natural or intentional force could exterminate ALL the people. (Unless whoever said Fiat Lux! eventually says Lights out! - but that possibility lies firmly outside the domain of science.) 78.131.76.69 (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- This is already addressed in the article. If something happens that significantly increases the ability of humans to survive hardship (meteor, or whatever), then humans today may expect to be in the first 5%, which is the first rebuttal listed.
For example, if one is certain that 99% of humans who will ever live will be cyborgs, but that only a negligible fraction of humans who have been born to date are cyborgs, one could be equally certain that at least one hundred times as many people remain to be born as have been.
Replace cyborg with extra-planetary inhabitant. Closhund (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
What's the point?
editWhat is the point of an argument with a ridiculous premise; 'the total number of humans that will exist is fixed'? 49.186.53.128 (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain why you think this is ridicuolous? The idea is that between the Big Bang and the heat death of the universe, there will be some finite number n of humans. The point of the argument is that we should believe n is low rather than high, that is, we should believe that the total number of humans that will ever live is low. TheWikipediaPersonGuy2016 (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
"Copernican Principle"
editThis terminology seems misleading or odd at best. Copernicus's reasons for rejecting a geocentric model of the universe seem completely irrelevant here. Shouldn't it be a principle of indifference? The idea of such a principle is that your credence or subjective probability between two qualitatively identical hypotheses should be equal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_indifference TheWikipediaPersonGuy2016 (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)