tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post4817980827323964421..comments2023-05-10T08:55:47.701-07:00Comments on Richard Carrier Blogs: Are We Doomed?Richard Carrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-8687156818738329652009-10-08T15:06:46.561-07:002009-10-08T15:06:46.561-07:00Okay, last bit: the axiom of choice and transfinit...Okay, last bit: the axiom of choice and transfinites (if I now understand this correctly)...<br /><br />In finite sets, if we have 8 cats and 80 dogs, we have a ratio of 1:10; if we split the cats between black and white and there are as many of each, we have 4 cats and 80 dogs, so we have a different ratio (1:20) and cats left over. It works the same for transfinites, as long as you use proper Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-83934670563461793742009-10-08T11:28:20.538-07:002009-10-08T11:28:20.538-07:00The second proof starts with the premise and then ...The second proof starts with the premise and then tests the contrary and finds it false:<br /><br />Probability = frequency. Frequency = the ratio of x(f) to ~x(f). Given any set N = {x1,x2,x3,...,~x1,~x2,~x3...}, there is a ratio of x(f) to ~x(f) equal to the number or fraction of ~x(f) that can be paired with every x(f).<br /><br />Your contention would be that this would not hold for an Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-66078053115191344352009-10-08T11:16:02.234-07:002009-10-08T11:16:02.234-07:00Bostrom relies on probabilities applied to transfi...Bostrom relies on probabilities applied to transfinites. As it happens, probability theory <i>requires</i> this application: probability itself is defined as frequency extended to infinity (e.g. the true probability of a die roll equals the frequency of that roll after hypothetically infinite rolls, and using calculus with infinite trials as the limit this can be formally proven to be correct). Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-24627105446975689062009-10-08T09:56:36.424-07:002009-10-08T09:56:36.424-07:00First, why Craig is wrong. Craig does things like ...First, why Craig is wrong. Craig does things like this: imagine a library with infinite red books and infinite black books, you have infinite books, now remove the black books, you still have infinite books, in defiance of logic which tells us (supposedly) you should have less after subtraction, not the same quantity. He does the same with even and odd numbers.<br /><br />The argument requires Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-54032901793755912482009-10-08T09:33:45.784-07:002009-10-08T09:33:45.784-07:00WAR_ON_ERROR said... I was under the impression th...<b>WAR_ON_ERROR said...</b> <i>I was under the impression that WLC's main problem was applying the rules of finite numbers to infinite sets. Maybe that's what you are saying, but it looks to me like your "counter-example" is contriving a finite set up to refute an infinite scenario.</i><br /><br />Exactly my point (hence my closing paragraph just above). We have no math to deal Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-38802365292569426442009-08-26T13:43:43.366-07:002009-08-26T13:43:43.366-07:00Sweet,
So glad you responded. I often run across...Sweet,<br /><br />So glad you responded. I often run across this situation in thought experiments and was wondering if I was getting something wrong.<br /><br />Anyway, I was under the impression that WLC's main problem was applying the rules of finite numbers to infinite sets. Maybe that's what you are saying, but it looks to me like your "counter-example" is contriving a Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479224236264150172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-83005561938864700332009-08-26T11:20:20.426-07:002009-08-26T11:20:20.426-07:00War_on_Error said... ...if there are infinite worl...<b>War_on_Error said...</b> <i>...if there are infinite worlds and 10 simulated worlds in each of those worlds, there are not more simulated worlds than natural worlds. They are numerically identical since they'd both be infinite. It's 50/50 chance of ending up in either, so for people to assume that it is more probable to end up in a created world is fallacious.</i><br /><br />Well, I&#Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-61764026026267464672009-07-27T21:29:02.061-07:002009-07-27T21:29:02.061-07:00Which is heavier? A pound of feathers or a pound ...Which is heavier? A pound of feathers or a pound of lead? Um, if there are infinite worlds and 10 simulated worlds in each of those worlds, there are not more simulated worlds than natural worlds. They are numerically identical since they'd both be infinite. It's 50/50 chance of ending up in either, so for people to assume that it is more probable to end up in a created world is Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479224236264150172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-73407452661568920212009-07-27T16:41:54.101-07:002009-07-27T16:41:54.101-07:00Are We in a Sim?
In Are You Living in a Simulatio...<b> Are We in a Sim?</b><br /><br />In <a href="http://www.simulation-argument.com" rel="nofollow">Are You Living in a Simulation?</a> Bostrom sneaks in an implausible premise that a civilization capable of generating unlimited sims would use any of that resource-space to generate sims exactly like our world, rather than worlds more overtly intelligently designed (like game sims and other managedRichard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-38148053073062914802009-07-27T16:40:19.353-07:002009-07-27T16:40:19.353-07:00Nick Bostrom
Haukur pointed me to Nick Bostrom...<b>Nick Bostrom</b><br /><br />Haukur pointed me to Nick Bostrom's extensive analysis of the possibilities of future collapses or extinctions (<a href="http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html" rel="nofollow">Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards</a>). I've already commented on most of what he does, and we're in agreement on some things, Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-58524630594039349792009-07-27T16:31:20.960-07:002009-07-27T16:31:20.960-07:00Tyro said... Why is a large population in the West...<b>Tyro said...</b> <i>Why is a large population in the West a problem? Because we consume vastly more resources than the developing world does of course, not only on a per-capita basis but also on absolute numbers.</i><br /><br />This fact is misleading if you don't break it down into what's actually being measured. For example, most electrical power consumption in the U.S. is entirely Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-61680376336452233962009-07-27T09:23:54.532-07:002009-07-27T09:23:54.532-07:00Predicting the Future from the Past: Part II
Anot...<b>Predicting the Future from the Past: Part II</b><br /><br />Another common mistake, as I already noted in my blog, is to foreshorten the timescales for developments. Hence you get a film like <i>2010</i> in which the size and portability of computers falls far short of the actual pace of advance (in the film they are comically large and clunky compared to actual computers and devices of the Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-50516747689058170042009-07-27T09:20:48.757-07:002009-07-27T09:20:48.757-07:00Predicting the Future from the Past: Part I
Shane...<b>Predicting the Future from the Past: Part I</b><br /><br /><b>Shane said...</b> <i>You can soften [your claim] to some lesser degree and it becomes a probability calculation of how likely some given technology is</i><br /><br />Tosh. Give me any length of time (at least five hundred years from the current start date) and follow the overwhelming probabilities (i.e. no significant catastrophes),Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-89592321620494229912009-07-27T09:20:07.588-07:002009-07-27T09:20:07.588-07:00The "Manifest Destiny" of Human Technolo...<b>The "Manifest Destiny" of Human Technology</b><br /><br /><b>Shane said...</b> <i>I've never been one to believe this inevitable, "manifest destiny", of human technology.</i><br /><br />Note that I did <i>not</i> say it is inevitable. I said it is inevitable <i>given maintenance of current conditions</i> (e.g. in the short-term, the persisting conditions of the past Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-22848607158122196282009-07-25T18:18:47.020-07:002009-07-25T18:18:47.020-07:00Should We Be Hopeful? Part II
It's trivial to...<b>Should We Be Hopeful? Part II</b><br /><br /><i>It's trivial to create a thought experiment where you give a population of people some massive amount of technology and some horribly degraded environmental condition (such as the desertification of the entire planet or the heat death of the universe) so that they all die.</i><br /><br />I agree. That's my point: such scenarios are Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-66295195216015148012009-07-25T17:47:49.423-07:002009-07-25T17:47:49.423-07:00Should We Be Hopeful? Part I
Tyro said... I think...<b>Should We Be Hopeful? Part I</b><br /><br /><b>Tyro said...</b> <i>I think we must remember that the transition periods between energy sources or technologies can be rough.</i><br /><br />Exactly. That's my "it can still suck" category, which I mentioned frequently. I'm not arguing we shouldn't endeavor to make things better and prevent things getting worse. I'm just Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-30941269442889019972009-07-25T17:44:17.521-07:002009-07-25T17:44:17.521-07:00Whale Oil!?
Tyro said... Had the transition from ...<b>Whale Oil!?</b><br /><br /><b>Tyro said...</b> <i>Had the transition from whale oil to petroleum happened a decade later, we may have exterminated the whales and suffered rough times with very little oil.</i><br /><br />I hope you're kidding. Before petroleum, the primary source of oil was olive and corn, not whales, and the primary source of energy was coal, not oil. Your imagined Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-2817022096367595172009-07-25T17:36:52.093-07:002009-07-25T17:36:52.093-07:00Nuclear Power Stuff: Part II
Tyro said... Smart a...<b>Nuclear Power Stuff: Part II</b><br /><br /><b>Tyro said...</b> <i>Smart and rational people avoid nuclear power because it's expensive to build and produces expensive power [and] time-consuming to build</i><br /><br />It is expensive to build, that's true, but it does not produce expensive power. In fact, in most states, it's cheaper than any fuel-based alternative. As for time, Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-23494288507696034762009-07-25T17:32:48.992-07:002009-07-25T17:32:48.992-07:00Nuclear Power Stuff: Part I
Tyro said... Nuclear ...<b>Nuclear Power Stuff: Part I</b><br /><br /><b>Tyro said...</b> <i>Nuclear power has had a lot of hype but despite advances still continues to be one of the most expensive forms of power available. Nuclear power plants have always been heavily subsidized to bring the costs down to that of other forms and the government is rightly reluctant to continue this.</i><br /><br />That's not really Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-43465254075794849872009-07-25T17:22:03.686-07:002009-07-25T17:22:03.686-07:00Irrational People Are Lame: Case In Point
Solon s...<b>Irrational People Are Lame: Case In Point</b><br /><br /><b>Solon said...</b> <i>That's not realism, that's ... Irrational, hyper-optimistic faith in reason.</i><br /><br />It's that very statement that is irrational. It rejects all empirical evidence of both the present and the past ten thousand years, and rests on no valid logic. <br /><br /><i>Our technological approach to life Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-81208423495956045022009-07-25T17:10:59.367-07:002009-07-25T17:10:59.367-07:00The "Oh No The Breeders Are Coming!" Sce...<b>The "Oh No The Breeders Are Coming!" Scenario</b><br /><br /><b>The Uncredible Hallq said...</b> <i>Can you poke any holes in the following semi-doomsday scenario? Some people are religiously opposed to birth control [and they have differential reproductive success] ... When that happens, the population will be kept in check by religious wars rather than birth control. It won't Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-41325925405458633132009-07-25T16:43:04.892-07:002009-07-25T16:43:04.892-07:00Physics Stuff
Guy with Hebrew Moniker I Can't...<b>Physics Stuff</b><br /><br /><b>Guy with Hebrew Moniker I Can't Type:</b> <i>While it is true that quantum gravity should nullify singularities, we don't have a proven or even demonstrably plausible theory of quantum gravity yet, so that holding that there are singularities within black holes is still reasonable.</i><br /><br />Only if you assume quantum mechanics is in some way false Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-55580315916512764182009-07-25T16:11:45.945-07:002009-07-25T16:11:45.945-07:00Wind Power
Wind energy is already starting to bec...<b>Wind Power</b><br /><br /><i>Wind energy is already starting to become economically competitive, though solar still does not seem quit there.</i><br /><br />Solar thermal is, it's just water intensive (so is nuclear), so it faces a competing resource problem (though that can be exaggerated, I'll discuss it in a later comment below). <br /><br />I'm not sure about the expandability Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-34500771323552864392009-07-25T16:05:14.878-07:002009-07-25T16:05:14.878-07:00Fall of Rome Stuff
Loren said... Any opinion of J...<b>Fall of Rome Stuff</b><br /><br /><b>Loren said...</b> <i>Any opinion of John Michael Greer's theory of catabolic collapse?</i><br /><br />In general, he correctly describes the resource management problems societies will face and the directions they can take, but he seems to ignore the real factor, which is human organization. As long as you maintain a successful government, adaptation toRichard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-40511710738893777432009-06-20T17:42:59.949-07:002009-06-20T17:42:59.949-07:00Tyro, it seems as if you don't think we can so...Tyro, it seems as if you don't think we can solve our resource problem. I think Richard at least implied that we could.<br /><br />You don't count on the advantages of a solid population. If our population is larger, immigration becomes slower, allowing a more natural 'integration', for lack of a better word. Immigration if done at too fast a pace can have ill side-effects.<br /><Pikemann Urgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02587558012877707537noreply@blogger.com