Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

12
  • I don't understand your explanation of why you think #1 and #2 mean we would never exist. At first site that claim seems nonsense. Can you clarify your reasoning?
    – Marco Ocram
    Commented Jan 26 at 6:29
  • 1
    No. The trichotomy is false, there can be multiple peaks and valleys in a random pattern. "To maximize the probability of our experience, we most likely are on or near the cusp of the bell curve" makes little sense. Even assuming it is a single peak curve, we cannot meaningfully estimate how far we are from the peak based on some generalistic considerations. And generally, probability theory cannot predict anything without some underlying model of population dynamics, about which nothing is said here.
    – Conifold
    Commented Jan 26 at 9:37
  • @MarcoOcram He's alluding to the doomsday argument (see Agent Smith's answer)
    – causative
    Commented Jan 26 at 9:58
  • 1
    I don't think this should be closed, because misuse of statistics to conclude absolute nonsense is a big part of what philosophers do for a living!
    – g s
    Commented Jan 26 at 12:45
  • 2
    Edited to attempt to stave off closure. I agree with @gs that understanding the philosophical basis of statistical arguments is a major practical application of philosophy.
    – J D
    Commented Jan 26 at 16:22