----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Bostrom" <nick@nickbostrom.com>
> Oh yes, the second data point would make a helluva difference! The problem
> with the one data point we have is that because of observational selection
> effects it doesn't tell us much. No matter how small a fraction of all
> planets in our infinite universe develop life, we would by necessity find
> that we originate from one of the exceptional ones that did. So this data
> point is predicted equally well (i.e. has a conditional probability of
one)
> given any theory that says that intelligent life would develop somewhere.
> But finding a second source of intelligent life, in our relative vicinity,
> would dramatically boost the support for those theories which say that
> intelligent life is common.
Hi Nick.
Alright, let's play a hypothetical game. Let us suppose that there was
intelligent life on Mars. We discovered them when we were first able-- many
years ago. Everything else is equal. Today, we look up into the cosmos--
nothing. Just us Earthlings and Martians, staring up into the vastness of
space.
Independent of the additional statistical information (disparate life forms
evolving under differing conditions as an additional data set to assist in
calculating environments under which life comes about,) explain how this
second data point defeats the observational selection effect inherent in the
anthropic principle.
Remember: no matter how small a fraction of all solar systems in our
infinite universe develop life, we would by neccessity find that we
(Earthlings and Martians) originate from one of the exceptional ones that
did.
Following me here?
--::jason.joel.thompson:: ::founder::
www.wildghost.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:18 MDT