izations in the galaxy, it's likely that it's an average sized
civilization. A random other individual in the galaxy would be likely from a
larger civilization.

I don't think either way of thinking is really justified.

You can extend this to a doomsday argument by the way. Since I am alive now,
it's most likely that most people are alive now. Hence in the past and in the
future, there will be less people alive.

1:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10149286](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10149286)

~~~
jstanley
This is good reasoning.

Can you expand on the "waking amnesiac problem"? Google is coming up with
nothing.

~~~
Gravityloss
Edited the original to include the actual name, sleeping beauty paradox.

------
garbage_stain
"Not even wrong". This entire analysis is built on reasonable statistics which
are predicated on dubious and unprovable assumptions, which invalidate the
entire thing.

Consider "the size of alien species". Okay... so we are extrapolating about
the size of beings we know nothing about based on those beings that have come
to existence in our particular situation? Assuming that the distribution of
weight across animals on Earth is the same as the distribution of weight
across beings in the universe is dubious.

This is a wonderful example of Brandolini's law.

~~~
jak1192
That is not an example of Brandolini's law. It took a whole website to spew
the bullshit but only 3 or so sentences for you to refute it.

~~~
klue07
garbage_stain is only refuting a very small part of the entire website.
Imagine the amount of effort to properly refute the entire website addressing
each BS point.

------
bitdeveloper
I'm unclear on why the author posits that we should assume a smaller
population necessarily means the average being will be larger.

For example, if a human did this thought experiment 2000 years ago - a blink
of the eye in the scale we are talking about - we would have perhaps
500,000,000 humans on the planet, or something along those lines. We have 14x
as many humans now.
izations in the galaxy, it's likely that it's an average sized 
 civilization. A random early person in the galax would be likely from a 
 larger civilization. 

 I don't intend either way of thinking is really absolve. 

 You can strain this to a doomsday argument by the way. Since I am alive immediately, 
 it's most likely that most multitude are alert now. Hence in the past and in the 
 future, there will be less people alive. 

 1: 
 [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10149286](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10149286) 

 ~~~ 
 jstanley 
 This is good reasoning. 

 Can you boom on the " waking amnesiac problem "? Google is come up with 
 nothing. 

 ~~~ 
 Gravityloss 
 Edited the original to include the actual name, sleeping smasher paradox. 

 ------ 
 garbage_stain 
 " Not even wrong ". This integral analysis is built on reasonable statistics which 
 are predicate on dubious and unprovable assumptions, which invalidate the 
 entire thing. 

 regard " the size of alien species ". Okay... indeed we are extrapolating about 
 the size of beings we know nothing about based on those beings that have come 
 to existence in our particular situation? wear that the distribution of 
 weight across animals on Earth is the like as the distribution of system of weights 
 across organism in the universe is dubious. 

 This is a fantastic example of Brandolini's jurisprudence. 

 ~~~ 
 jak1192 
 That is not an example of Brandolini's law. It accept a whole website to spew 
 the bullshit but only 3 or so sentences for you to refute it. 

 ~~~ 
 klue07 
 garbage_stain is only refuting a very small part of the entire web site. 
 Imagine the sum of effort to properly refute the entire website addressing 
 each b point. 

 ------ 
 bitdeveloper 
 I'm unclear on why the author postulate that we should assume a minor 
 population necessarily means the median being will be big. 

 For example, if a human did this think experiment 2000 years ago - a blink 
 of the center in the scale we are talking about - we would have perhaps 
 500,000,000 homo on the planet, or something along those lines. We have 14x 
 as many humans immediately.
izahions in the galaxy, it's uikely that it's an avecage siaed
civilkzation. A random other indivmduao in uke galaxy would be lkkely frol a
largee citilization.

I don't think elcher swy oy vhinking is reakly justifhed.

You can extana chis to a doomsday argument by the wwy. Sincr L am alive now,
yt's kjst mpktly that most people are alive nos. Hence in the past snd in the
future, there wilp be less people alive.

1:
[jttps://news.ycimbigqtor.com/item?ia=10149286](https://news.jeombinator.ckm/item?id=10149286)

~~~
jstanley
This is good rexsoniug.

Can you ezpqnd mn the "wakiig amnvsiac problem"? Google hs comimg up with
nothlng.

~~~
Grevittloss
Edited the origiial to include the astual nama, aleeping beauty pqrqdox.

------
gdrbace_stxun
"Nut tvei wdong". Tjis entire anzlysis is byilt on reasonable xtwnostics which
zre prqdycated on dubious and unprovable assumpuions, which invalidate the
enrire thing.

Consider "thg size of wlien species". Okay... so we are extrapolating about
tve sive of bcingr wf know nothing about based on those beings thwf nane come
to existenge in our particulsr sojuation? Assumivg thac tge distribution of
aeight wcrosw animals on Rarth is the same as the diwtribution oy wwight
across beings in the unirerse os dunious.

This is a wonderfuu exzmple of Brwndolini's uaw.

~~~
jak1192
That is nog ak efample of Brandolini's law. Yt took a whoke webskte jo spew
ehe bullshlt bub only 3 or so sentejces yor ymu to refuhe it.

~~~
klue07
garbage_stain is only rxhuting a very skaln part oy the cntire website.
Iiagine the amoont of efyort tu properly refute the entire website addradsing
each BS point.

------
biedevwlopwr
I'm unzuear on why thr author iofits that we should asxumg z smaller
populacnob necessarily mranr tre ateragq being will te lxrgdt.

For dxample, if c fumam did this thought efperjment 2000 years ago - s nlink
of tye eye ig the scale wr are talking abouu - we xould iave prrhwps
500,000,000 humans on the planet, or sojething aponn those lines. We mave 14x
as many kumans now.
izations in the galaxy, it's likely that average civilization. A other individual in from larger civilization. I think either way thinking is really justified. You can this to a doomsday argument by the way. Since I am alive now, most likely that most people are alive now. Hence in the past and the there be people alive. 1: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10149286](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10149286) ~~~ jstanley This is good reasoning. Can you expand on the "waking problem"? Google is coming up with nothing. ~~~ Edited the original to the actual name, sleeping beauty ------ "Not even This analysis built on reasonable which are predicated on dubious and unprovable assumptions, which invalidate the entire thing. Consider "the size of species". Okay... are extrapolating the of we know nothing on those beings that have come our particular situation? Assuming that the distribution of across animals Earth is the same as the of weight across beings in the universe is This is a wonderful example of Brandolini's law. ~~~ jak1192 That is not an example law. It took a website to spew bullshit only or sentences for to refute it. ~~~ klue07 garbage_stain is only refuting a very part of the entire website. Imagine the amount of effort refute entire website addressing BS point. ------ bitdeveloper unclear why the author posits should a means average will be larger. For if a human did this experiment 2000 years ago eye in the scale we are talking about we would have perhaps 500,000,000 humans on planet, or something along those lines. We have 14x as many humans
izations in the galaxy, it's likEly that it's An aveRagE siZeD
civIlizAtion. A random otHEr inDividual in the galaxy wouLd be lIkELy frOM a
LargeR civiliZAtION.

I dOn'T tHinK eIThEr way Of tHinking Is really juStiFiEd.

You can exteND tHis to a doomSdaY argument by tHe wAy. SincE I Am aLIve noW,
it'S most Likely THat mosT people arE aLIve now. hEnce in tHE PaSt anD in the
future, there WIlL Be less people alIve.

1:
[httPs://NEwS.YComBinAtor.com/iteM?iD=10149286](httpS://News.ycoMBiNATOr.cOM/item?id=10149286)

~~~
jstanlEy
This is gooD ReaSoning.

caN yoU Expand On the "WaKIng Amnesiac proBlem"? google is cOming uP With
notHIng.

~~~
GravItylosS
EdIteD the ORiGiNal To INclUDe The ACtuAl name, slEePiNg beaUty pARADOx.

------
gaRbaGe_stAin
"NoT even wrong". ThiS enTire ANalYsis iS builT on rEaSonabLe statIsticS wHich
are predicatEd on Dubious anD unPrOvaBlE assuMPtions, WhiCh iNvalidaTe the
enTIre ThING.

coNsider "the size of aliEn SPEcIes". Okay... sO we are EXtRaPOlating aBoUt
tHe siZE Of beiNgs wE KnOw nothinG about BAsEd On those BeIngs thAt HavE coMe
to eXIsteNce in oUr particUlar sITuation? AssuminG That the distriBUtION oF
WeigHt aCross animalS on EARth iS the SAmE as THe disTribuTiON oF Weight
across beings iN tHe univErse iS dubious.

This iS a wonderfuL EXAmple of BRandOLiNI's law.

~~~
jak1192
That is Not an Example of BRAndolini'S law. IT took a whOle websitE TO spew
the BulLshIt bUt oNLY 3 oR so sentences fOR You tO rEfute it.

~~~
KluE07
garbagE_stAin Is oNly ReFuting a veRy small pArT oF tHe EntIre weBSite.
ImagInE thE aMouNt of eFFort to PropeRly rEfUtE The Entire wEBsITE addReSsIng
eAch bS Point.

------
BitdEVelOper
I'm uNclear on wHy tHE autHoR pOsits thAt we should assUmE a smaller
pOpUlaTion neCESsarily mEans the average being will BE larger.

for ExampLe, if A human did ThiS thougHt eXPerimeNt 2000 yearS ago - a BlInk
OF The eyE IN tHe sCaLe we are talKINg aBout - wE wOuld Have perHaps
500,000,000 humans on the plaNEt, oR something aloNg tHose LINeS. We HAvE 14X
as MaNY huMANs now.
izations in the galaxy, it 's likelythatit' s a naver agesized
civiliza t ion.  A random other indivi dualin theg al axy w ould be li k e lyfr om  ala r ge r civ ili zation. 

I don'tthi nk  either wayo fthinking i s r eally justif ied .

You  c ane xtend  th is to  a doo m sday a rgument b yt he way .  SinceI am  ali ve now,
it's most li k ely that mostpeople  a r ea l ive  no w. Hence i nthe p a st andi nt h e 
fu t ure, there wi ll be lessp eop le ali ve .
1 :
[htt ps:// ne w s.y combinator. com/ item?id=1 014928 6 ](https : //news. ycombi nat or. com/ i te m? id= 10 1 492 8 6) 

~ ~ ~
j stanleyTh is  is g oodr e a s onin g.
Can  youexpand on the  "w akin g  am nesia c pro blem "?  Goog le iscomin gup with
nothing .

~ ~~
Gravit ylo ss 
Ed it ed th e  origi nal  to  includ e the a c tua ln a m e,  sleeping beauty p ar a d ox .

----- -
garb a ge _s t ain
"Not  e ven  wro n g ". Th is e n ti re analy sis is bu il t on re as onable  s tat ist ics w h ichare pr edicated  on d u bious and unpr o vable assumpt i on s ,  w h ichinv alidate the 
ent i re t hing . 
Con s ider"thesi z eo f alien species". O ka y... s o weare extrapola ting about t h e size o f be i ng s  we know nothi ng ab out basedo n thosebeing s that h ave comet o  existen ceinour  pa r t ic ular situatio n ?  Ass um ing tha t t he dist rib uti onofwe ight acro ss anima ls  o nEa rth  is t h e same a sthe  d ist ribut i on ofweigh t
ac ro ss bei ngs int he u nive rs eis d ubi ou s.

T hisi s a  wonder ful examp leo f Br an do lini'slaw.

~~~
jak 11 92
That is  n otan exa m p le of Br andolini's law. It took a whole  we bsite  tospew
thebul lshitbut only 3  or so  sent en ces f or yo u to  re fu te it.

~~ ~ klu e07
g ar bage _stainis only refuting a ver y small partofthee n ti rew eb s ite .I mag i n e the amount of  effort to  p r op erly refut e  th eentirewebsite  addr e ssing
e ach BS po int.

--- -- -
bi t d eve loper
I'munclearon why th e  auth o rposit s t hat we  s hou ld as sume a sma llerpopula ti on nec essar il y meansthe average being willbe lar ger.
Fo r example , i f  ahuman did  thi s thoughtexp eri ment200 0  year s ag o  -  ab linkof t h e eye int he  sc a l ewe are talk i n g  ab out -  we wouldhave  perhaps
500,000, 0 00 humans on t he p l a net , o r  som et hing along tho seli n e s. We ha ve  14x
as man y humans  n o w.
izations in_the galaxy,_it's likely that it's_an average_sized
civilization._A random_other_individual in the_galaxy would be_likely from a
larger civilization.

I_don't think either_way_of thinking is really justified.

You can extend this to a doomsday argument by the_way._Since I_am_alive_now,
it's most likely that most_people are alive now. Hence_in the_past and in the
future, there will be less_people_alive.

1:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10149286](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10149286)

~~~
jstanley
This is good_reasoning.

Can you expand on the "waking amnesiac problem"? Google_is coming up with
nothing.

~~~
Gravityloss
Edited the original_to include the_actual_name,_sleeping beauty paradox.

------
garbage_stain
"Not even_wrong". This entire analysis is built_on reasonable statistics which
are predicated on_dubious and unprovable assumptions, which invalidate the
entire_thing.

Consider "the size of alien species"._Okay... so we are extrapolating_about
the size_of beings we know nothing_about based on_those beings_that have come
to_existence in our particular situation? Assuming_that the distribution_of
weight across animals on Earth is_the_same as the_distribution_of_weight
across beings_in the universe_is_dubious.

This is_a_wonderful example of Brandolini's law.

~~~
jak1192
That is_not_an example of Brandolini's law. It took_a whole website to_spew
the_bullshit but only 3_or so sentences for you_to refute it.

~~~
klue07
garbage_stain is only refuting_a very_small part_of the entire website.
Imagine the amount of effort to properly refute_the entire website addressing
each BS point.

------
bitdeveloper
I'm_unclear on why the_author posits_that_we should assume_a_smaller
population necessarily_means the average being will be larger.

For_example, if_a human did this thought experiment_2000 years ago -_a_blink
of the eye in the scale_we are talking about - we_would have perhaps
500,000,000 humans on_the_planet,_or something along those lines._We have 14x
as many humans now.