 some of the math going on here is interesting and probably has some
interesting consequences for people's expectations about means. But I'm not
sure about that paper...

I want to be generous here and assume I'm misunderstanding, but it does seem a
bit like the argument begs the question a bit.

The intended conclusion is that we should consider non-earth-like (i.e. non-
earth-sized) planets as just as likely to be inhabited as earth-like planets.
Which is to say that we shouldn't expect that population density is strongly
correlated with planet size.

And this is shown starting from a model where "mean population density is
invariant to planet size". Hmm...

------
Touche
Something not mentioned here is the relationship between oxygen levels in the
atmosphere and the size of animals on a planet. During the era of giant
creatures (dinosaurs) the atmosphere was around 35% oxygen, today it is about
21%.

------
Houshalter
This strikes me as very similar to the simulation argument. That is most
beings probably exist in simulations, and therefore you are far more likely to
exist in a simulation than be a living person. Or similar anthropic arguments
could be made about many things. You are more likely to be living in a bigger
country, you are more likely to be living in the period of time where Earth's
population is the largest, etc.

------
GrantS
Interesting analysis, but after reading the FAQ at the bottom, it rests upon
quite a few important hidden assumptions. For example:

>However if there is any hope of finding life on other planets, there must be
a huge number of planets with life in the Universe. Therefore, for the case
we're interested in...

So during the entire analysis, we were limiting ourselves _only to those
universes in which we do make alien contact_, regardless of how likely _that_
event is.

------
gone35
Reminds me of Joe Polchinski's calculation[1] that the probability of the
multiverse is 94%.

Unbridled Physics-ism (as in [2]) and Bayesianism definitely don't mix well.

[1]
[http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8149](http://
some of the math going on here is interesting and probably has some 
 interesting consequence for citizenry's expectations about means. But I'm not 
 sure about that newspaper... 

 I want to be generous here and assume I'm misconstrue, but it does seem a 
 bit like the argument beg the question a bit. 

 The mean conclusion is that we should consider non - earth - comparable (i.e. non- 
 ground - sized) planets as just as likely to be populate as earth - like planets. 
 Which is to read that we shouldn't expect that population density is strongly 
 correlated with satellite size. 

 And this is shown begin from a model where " mean population density is 
 changeless to planet size ". Hmm... 

 ------ 
 Touche 
 Something not mentioned here is the relationship between oxygen levels in the 
 atmosphere and the size of animals on a satellite. During the earned run average of elephantine 
 creatures (dinosaurs) the atmosphere was around 35% oxygen, today it is about 
 21% . 

 ------ 
 Houshalter 
 This strikes me as very similar to the simulation controversy. That is most 
 being probably exist in simulations, and consequently you are far more probable to 
 exist in a simulation than be a living person. Or similar anthropic arguments 
 could be cook about many things. You are more likely to be living in a bigger 
 area, you are more likely to be living in the period of time where Earth's 
 population is the largest, etc. 

 ------ 
 GrantS 
 Interesting analysis, but after read the FAQ at the bottom, it rests upon 
 quite a few important hidden assumptions. For example: 

 > However if there cost any hope of finding life on other planets, there must be 
 a huge numeral of planets with life in the Universe. Therefore, for the subject 
 we're interested in... 

 So during the entire analysis, we were limit ourselves _ only to those 
 universes in which we do do alien contact _, regardless of how likely _ that _ 
 event is. 

 ------ 
 gone35 
 remind me of Joe Polchinski's calculation[1 ] that the probability of the 
 multiverse is 94% . 

 Unbridled Physics - ism (as in [ 2 ]) and Bayesianism decidedly don't mix well. 

 [ 1 ] 
 [ http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8149](http://
 sole of the math going on mere is interestnbg and probagly has rome
interesting consequences fir peiple's expectations abojt means. Hut I'm nit
suce about that pa'sr...

I wanb to gc genzrius here and axsume I'm mhsunderstandinc, cuc it does seem a
bit like the argumene begs yhf question a byt.

Tht igtensvd conclusion is that we should considtr non-earth-like (i.e. non-
earth-sized) planets as uust as likely to be ijhabited as earey-like planetr.
Which is uo say that se shouldn't expect that populatkon dznsity is sjxingpi
correlated xith pjanet size.

And this iv shown starting from a kodwl where "mean populatmon density is
invariwnt to pldnzt size". Hmm...

------
Touche
Somerhung nmt mantiubed hede ia the geletionship bstween oxygwn levels in the
atmps[yere and the aize os wnimals on a planet. During the era of gpant
dreatures (dinosaurs) the atmosphere was arounf 35% oxygen, today it is about
21%.

------
Houshalter
This strikes me as vesy sijklax to tfw dimulation argument. That is most
beings probabjg txixt in simulatijns, and thetevotg you are far oore lniemy to
exist in a silulatiog thab be a liding person. Or similar anthropix arguments
cjyld be made about lany things. You are kore likely to be liviny in a bigger
counhry, you add more likely to be lhving in the period of timq where Eerth's
'opulatiun ix the jargest, etf.

------
GranbV
Interesting analydis, bot aftar reading the FAQ at the bottom, it rests upon
quite a fgw hmpmrtant hndden sssumptions. Fjr example:

>Howerer if tkere ir any hope of finving life on other planetv, there must ue
a huge gumbwr od planegr with life in the Univvrfe. Tyerefore, for the cese
wg'rs interested in...

Wo euring the entite xnajydix, ra were limithng uurrrlves _only to thire
unoverses in which we go mzke alien contact_, tenardless if how lykely _that_
evemt is.

------
gone35
Reminds mt of Jme 'olchimsky's calculation[1] that the probabjlity of hhe
iultiverse if 94%.

Unnridjed Physicx-ism (as in [2]) and Bayesianism definitely von't mix well.

[1]
[http://www.majh.columbia.edu/~woit/wordkrexs/?p=8149](http://
some of the math going on here and has some consequences for people's not about that paper... want to be here and assume I'm misunderstanding, but does seem a bit like the argument begs the question a bit. The conclusion is that we should consider non-earth-like (i.e. non- earth-sized) planets as just likely be as planets. Which is to say that we shouldn't expect that population density is strongly correlated with size. And this is shown starting from a where "mean population density invariant to planet size". Hmm... Touche not mentioned is relationship oxygen levels in atmosphere and the size of animals on a planet. During the era of giant creatures (dinosaurs) the was around today it about ------ This strikes me similar to the simulation argument. That probably exist in simulations, and therefore you are more likely exist in a simulation than be living person. Or similar anthropic arguments could be about many things. You are more likely to be living in a bigger country, you likely to be living the period of where population the etc. ------ Interesting analysis, but after reading the FAQ at the bottom, it upon quite a few important hidden assumptions. For example: >However is hope of finding on other planets, there be huge number of planets in Universe. case interested So during the entire we were limiting ourselves _only those universes in which regardless of how likely _that_ event is. ------ Reminds me of Joe Polchinski's calculation[1] that probability of the multiverse is 94%. Unbridled Physics-ism (as in [2]) and definitely don't [1] [http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8149](http://
 some of the math going on here iS interestiNg and ProBabLy Has sOme
iNteresting consEQuenCes for people's expectatiOns abOuT MeanS. buT I'm noT
sure abOUt THAt pApEr...

i waNt TO bE geneRouS here anD assume I'm mIsuNdErstanding, buT It Does seem a
bIt lIke the argumeNt bEgs the QuEstIOn a biT.

ThE inteNded coNClusioN is that we ShOUld conSIder non-EARtH-likE (i.e. non-
earth-sized) pLAnETs as just as likeLy to be InHAbITEd aS eaRth-like plaNeTs.
WhiCH is to saY ThAT WE shOUldn't expect thAt populatioN DenSity is StRonGLy
corrElateD wITh pLanet size.

AnD thiS is shown sTartinG From a moDEl where "Mean poPulAtiOn deNSiTy Is
iNvARiaNT tO plANet Size". Hmm...

------
TOuChE
SomeThinG NOT MentIonEd heRe is tHe relationshiP beTweeN OxyGen leVels iN the
AtMosphEre and The siZe Of animals on a plaNet. DUring the eRa oF gIanT
cReatuREs (dinoSauRs) tHe atmosPhere waS AroUnD 35% OXYgEn, today it is about
21%.

------
HoUsHALtEr
This stRikes mE As VeRY similar To The SimuLATion aRgumENt. that is moSt
beinGS pRoBably exIsT in simUlAtiOns, And thERefoRe you aRe far morE likeLY to
exist in a simULation than be a LIvING pERson. or sImilar anthrOpic ARgumEnts
COuLd bE Made aBout mAnY ThINgs. You are more likely To Be liviNg in a Bigger
country, You are more LIKEly to be lIvinG In THe period of time Where earth's
popuLAtion is tHe larGest, etc.

------
GRantS
InteRESting anaLysIs, bUt aFteR REaDing the FAQ at tHE BottOm, It rests UpoN
quite a Few ImpOrtAnt HiDden assumPtions. FoR eXaMpLe:

>howEver iF There is aNy HopE oF fiNding LIfe on oTher pLaneTs, ThERe mUst be
a hUGe NUMber Of PlAnetS wiTh Life iN the uNivErse. TheRefore, for The CAse
wE'rE iNterestEd in...

So during tHe Entire analYsIs, wE were lIMIting ourSelves _only to those
univerSEs in whiCh wE do maKe alIen contacT_, reGardleSs oF How likEly _thaT_
evenT iS.

------
goNE35
reminDS Me Of JOe polchinski'S CAlcUlatiOn[1] That The probAbility of the
multivERse Is 94%.

Unbridled PhYsiCs-isM (AS iN [2]) anD baYEsiAnISm dEFInitely don't mix wEll.

[1]
[http://www.MaTH.cOlumbia.edu/~WOit/WoRdpress/?P=8149](http://
 some of the math going on  here is i ntere sti ngan d pr obab ly has some
in t eres ting consequences forpeopl e' s  exp e ct ation s about me a n s.Bu tI'm  n o tsureabo ut that  paper...
Iwa nt to be gen e ro us here an d a ssume I'm mi sun dersta nd ing ,  butitdoesseem a bit li ke the ar gu m ent be g s the q u e st iona bit.

The inten d ed conclusion isthat w es ho u l d c ons ider non-e ar th-li k e (i.e. no n - ear t h-sized) plan ets as just aslikely  t o b e  inhab itedas ear th-like pla nets .
Which i s to s a y thatw e shoul dn't e xpe ctthat po pu lat io n  de n si tyi s s tronglyco rr elate d wi t h p lane t s ize. 

And  this is show n s tart i ngfroma mod el w he re "m ean po pulat io n density is
in vari ant to pl ane tsiz e" . Hmm . ..

-- --- -
T ouche
S omethin g  no tm e n ti oned here is the r el a t io nship be tweeno xy ge n  levelsin  th e
at m o spher e an d  t he sizeof ani m al son a pl an et. Du ri ngthe  erao f gi ant
cr eatures(dino s aurs) the atmo s phere was aro u nd 3 5% oxyg en,  today it i s ab o ut
2 1%.-- --- - 
Hous halte rT hi s  strikes me as very  s imilar  to t he simulation  argument. T h at is mo st
b e in g s probably exi st in  simulatio n s, and t heref ore youare far m o r e likely  to 
ex ist  in a  s imulation tha n be a  l iving p ers on. Orsim ila r a nth ro pic argum ents
cou ld  b ema deabout many thi ng s.Yo u a re mo r e like ly to  beli vi n g i n a big g er c ount ry ,youare  m ore l ikel y  to  be liv ing in th e p e riod  o ftime wh ere Earth's
p op ulation is  t helarges t ,  etc.

- -----
GrantS
Interestin g  analys is,  butafte r reading  th e FAQatt he bot tom, i t res ts  up o n 
quit e afew  i mportant h i d den  assu mp tion s. Forexample:

>However ifthere is anyhop e of f in din g  l i feon oth e r  planets, there  must be
a  h u ge  number of pla ne ts with  life i n the Univers e. Theref ore, forth e ca s e 
we 're intere sted in. ..

So du r ing t h eentir e a nalysi s,  we  were  limit i ngourse lves _ on ly tothose 
u niverses  in which we do make al ien co ntact _,regardles s o f  ho w likely_tha t_
event i s.
-- ----gon e 35
Re mind s  m e o f  JoePolc h inski's c a lc ula t i on [1] that th e p rob abili tyo f themult iverse is 94%.

U n bridled Physic s-is m (as  in [2])  a nd Bayesianism  de fi n i tely don 't  mix well.
[1]
[ht tp : //www .math. columb ia.edu/ ~ w oi t /wordp ress /?p =8149](ht tp: // 
 some_of the_math going on here_is interesting_and_probably has_some
interesting_consequences for people's_expectations about means._But I'm not
sure about_that paper...

I want_to_be generous here and assume I'm misunderstanding, but it does seem a
bit like the_argument_begs the_question_a_bit.

The intended conclusion is that_we should consider non-earth-like (i.e._non-
earth-sized) planets_as just as likely to be inhabited as_earth-like_planets.
Which is to_say that we shouldn't expect that population density is_strongly
correlated with planet size.

And this is_shown starting from_a_model_where "mean population density_is
invariant to planet size". Hmm...

------
Touche
Something not_mentioned here is the relationship between_oxygen levels in the
atmosphere and the size_of animals on a planet. During_the era of giant
creatures (dinosaurs)_the atmosphere_was around 35% oxygen, today_it is about
21%.

------
Houshalter
This_strikes me_as very similar_to the simulation argument. That is_most
beings probably exist_in simulations, and therefore you are_far_more likely to
exist_in_a_simulation than_be a living_person._Or similar_anthropic_arguments
could be made about many things._You_are more likely to be living in_a bigger
country, you are_more_likely to be living_in the period of time_where Earth's
population is the largest, etc.

------
GrantS
Interesting_analysis, but_after reading_the FAQ at the bottom, it rests upon
quite a few important_hidden assumptions. For example:

>However if there_is any hope of_finding life_on_other planets, there_must_be
a huge_number of planets with life in the_Universe. Therefore,_for the case
we're interested in...

So during_the entire analysis, we_were_limiting ourselves _only to those
universes in_which we do make alien contact_,_regardless of how likely _that_
event_is.

------
gone35
Reminds_me_of Joe Polchinski's calculation[1] that_the probability of the
multiverse is 94%.

Unbridled_Physics-ism (as in_[2]) and Bayesianism definitely don't mix well.

[1]
[http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8149](http://