/sci/ - Science & Math

The human race as a whole is a shitty one that will die out and not be remember by anything.

Assuming we ever go interstellar I think it's be in-between those two extremes with us terraforming several planets in each system we visit and slowly expanding our system count.

>>10410410
assuming we could even colonize any other planet, it'd be interesting to see future generations of humanity on other planets a couple thousand years into the future. we'd probably have evolved very separately.

>>10410410
No, we will destroy our pathetic civilisation because we keep fucking up our own planet.

>>10410410
The Copernican principle says that a human is equally likely to find themselves at any position n of the total population N. If we think humanity will one day dominate the galaxy and live for millions of years, N becomes so large that the probability of you and me emerging this early in our history instead of in a future with trillions of humans approaches 0%. It's pretty depressing but everything suggests that, for some reason, humanity will end sometime in the near future

>>10412524
Out of total extant population N. Future humans who don't exist yet don't increase N.
>>10410410
Assuming we can't solve ftl communication a galaxy spanning empire seems pretty unlikely.
Probably settle a handful of promising worlds around young stars that become hub-worlds for fairly small local regions.

>>10410410
Im mostly a self made physicist because I do not accept the current academia model but ive read everything there is to know about civilization types, michiu kaku invented those and he is right we are type zero and going to type one will save us or the process will destroy us. Once we colonize there isnt much that can stop us. Eventually we will change star and having humans all over the solar system gets us a solid billion year to achieve it

>>10410410
Most imteresting digits ive ever seen here

>>10412540
This post isn't saying anything. N isn't the extant population but the total number of human births. If a total of a trillion humans will ever be born, the chance of your n emerging this early in our history is 5%. If 10 trillions, it starts to approach 0%. Smarter people than you and me have already grappled with this problem and it's defeated explanation so far

>>10412524
>>10412574
>humans will go extinct tomorrow
>why
>because the chances of you drawing a small n number from an arbitrarily large N pool of numbers is small
the doomsday argument more like the brainlet argument.

>>10412524
If humanity exists for the rest of time then being born at any point in time in which humanity exists is basically zero.

>>10412524
but SOMEONE needs to be part of the first few humans, so that's us.

>>10410410
Neither. People keep falling for the ML master's "I will get a comfy job" meme instead of putting in the years to make a difference. We'll be extinct within 1k years.

>>10412561
Then you’re a shit dumb as fuck physicist and a retard outside of that, it’s called the Kardashev scale and wasn’t invented by some pop sci celebrity scientist.
Kys.

>>10412684
>basically zero
It isn’t, in this case there’s an infinite difference between zero and any number larger than it no matter how small. What you’re saying is invalid unless the probability was an actual zero.

>>10410410
Eventually we will be the hunted.
We may win on some battles but others will no except humans

>>10412677
You simplified the argument but didn’t provide a solution

>>10412684
Seriously what lol. I want you to take a good, long look at your post, maybe consult a middle school book on probability, and tell me if you’re satisfied with it

>>10412685
Yes, but at some point we have consider what is more probable: that we are in the first 0.000001% or some other arbitrarily small number of humans who will ever be born, or if humanity will end at some point in the future

Again, smarter people than us have already scrutinised the argument and nobody has found a flaw in it

>>10413310
>Again, smarter people than us have already scrutinised the argument and nobody has found a flaw in it
Nah, you're just being naive. This guy >>10412685 is right. Look at your shirt, if we are to believe that billions or maybe trillions of other shirts are to be made in the future, then the chance of you owning that one particular shirt this early in the history of shirt production is nearly 0%. But the reality is, there is a 100% chance of you owning that shirt because it already happened. Reality doesn't always line up with traditional human reasoning, maybe it's faulty maths or a bad representation of maths at some point in time, but like that anon said SOMEONE happened to be among the first, and the only ego you have to compare is your own, since this is a problem of experience after all. Hell, maybe you're right about humanity coming to an end sooner than we're talking about, but not for the mathematical reasons you described.

>>10410410
Colonialism is wrong though. Stop trying to contaminate the universe with this planets organic matter.

>>10412524
But what are the chances of you, me or humanity existing at all?
0.
Yet here we are.

>>10410410
we wont leave the solar system, our child AI will continue

>>10413445
You aren't making a point. Saying that if the sample size is 1, the probability of what you pick to be it is 100% is not a point lol. When you consider the Copernican principle, that you are not a privileged observer, and that you are a randomly selected n from the pool of all possible observers N, past, present and future, then the probability of your n emerging at the 100 billion births today becomes increasingly statistically unlikely the longer humanity lives and N increases. If 1.5 trillion humans will ever be born, the probability of your n emerging this early in our history is 5%. At current fertility rates, that's in 9000 years. If you think humanity will be spacefaring and live for millions of years, your n approaches 0%.
Intuitively it seems wrong, and I took a while to accept it as well, but so far no holes in the argument have been discovered

humans elvolved to conceive and grow in 1G tho, experiments have been done on various animals like frogs and mice, of those mice embryos that were able to conceive in space, only few were able to survive, but those that did were not able to grow properly back on earth having been conceived in space, i think we need to figure this out before we start talking about space colonies. how exactly do you cheaply and constantly replicate 1G gravity in space, im not convinced cylinder like structures would be without problems

>>10413567
>Copernican principle
people really believe this stuff? I thought it was another form of mental masturbation for Statfags... similar to the whole 'this is not reality, its a simulation' theory

>>10410410

Kardashev scale is complete bullshit.

>>10411076

>>10413604
>relativity is wrong
what the fuck are you even saying at this point

>>10413625
sry my bad, didn't mean to quote that, was simply looking it up. meant to reply to the post overall, without quote

>>10413567
The longer we live the closer the chance of being born at ANY time gets to zero, dumbass. Like that one anon said it's the same bullshit as simulation theory.

>>10413567
The probability is small - correct. No one is arguing it isn't small. The chances of winning the lottery are small. What you are doing is walking up to a lottery winner, and telling them not to cash in their ticket because the odds of them winning (after they have already won) is close to 0. THAT'S how retarded you are being.

>>10410410
No, humans will continue to become more stupid and enslaved to their betters. Look at 2001 and 2010 space odyssey. They had bold hopes for the advancement of mankind when those films were made. Where are we now? Former civilized nations are regressing to third world shit holes. Little can be spent on innovation because most if not all of the money goes to service national debts.

>>10413668
What? There is an upper bound, heat death, for the time in which N can increase. When it happens, you could pick a random human from N and he could confidently say he was picked from 99.9999% of later humans and not the 0.0001% earliest. The probability of picking a human that emerged only 13 billions years into the age of the universe would be almost infinitely small

>>10413709
The lottery ticket analogy doesn't work since it doesn't have an equivalent to the human extinction variable to explain your "luck". Again, we have to consider what is more probable: the near 0% chance of our consciousnesses emerging this early or humanity ending at some point in the near future

>>10413744
>There is an upper bound, heat death, for the time in which N can increase. When it happens, you could pick a random human from N and he could confidently say he was picked from 99.9999% of x variable humans and not the 0.0001% y variable. The probability of picking any y variable human would be almost infinitely small

It's just as unlikely that you'll end up in the first few billion humans as the last few billion, and any set in between. If you're trolling it worked, you've wasted my time. But if you're not trolling really put some thought in the systems you're using to come up with these probabilities.

>>10413764
I realized I worded this poorly and wanted to try to explain. I get where you're coming from and what you're using to reach that conclusion. But the chances of being born into any n body is the same percentage no matter where you are, it's just that the exact percentage is an unknown number (because we don't know how long we'll live). You're putting the maths into arbitrary categories in order to get the near-zero percentage number you keep throwing around.

>>10413785
(part 3) Take a dice. You have a 1/x chance of getting any number, x being the number of sides. Let's say you roll a low number. The likelihood of ending up there is not representative of the set.

>>10413796
If you don't know how many sides there are and roll a 7, you can't accurately extrapolate how many sides there are based on that one particular roll. Same with predicting how long humanity will last based only on your individual perspective

>>10412730
Hey brainlet you are talking to someone who thought himself algebra and calculus with youtube. You have nonidea what you are talkimg abouy

>>10413764
>>10413785
You are misconstruing the argument but I think the problem is partly on my explanation. It's better explained here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument
>This argument has generated a lively philosophical debate, and no consensus has yet emerged on its solution.

>>10413806
they didn't have videos on spelling/typing?

>>10410410
never
aliens will soon send a spaceship our way to crash into the earth at 99% the speed of light out of fear that we'll do the same to them
the collision will contain enough energy and mass to completely annihilate humanity and we will never see it coming cause it can almost outpace light

>>10413808
and people take out meaningful beliefs from this theory? Sure that the chance of any species to survive x years diminishes the larger x gets. but that doesn't really mean anything other than the fact that we were more likely to die during first major extinction than to colonize the solar system.... its pure redundancy

>>10413845
in fact we could 'maximize' our probability of success by simply redefining definition of species and therefore we "would no longer compose part of the same reference group"

>>10413488

Fuck AI and transhuman filth, the future is human.

>>10414181
meat robots don't square well with the future of space travel

>>10412524
This is retarded.

>>10410413
fbpb

>>10413567
Some people have to be born now. Couldn’t we say the same about insects when they first developed?

>>10413830
X<0.92 above that messes up with the kinetic energy output

>>10413724
it's being intentionally done that way, there are already antigravity aircrafts that btfo chemical propulsion rockets

>>10414573
don't know about the latter, but its true, masses should be stupid otherwise they are difficult to control

>>10413830
>aliens will soon send a spaceship our way to crash into the earth at 99% the speed of light out of fear that we'll do the same to them
Why?
Also aliens would be millions of years ahead of us, and as biospheres are easily detectable we would be dead already if they would be interested in galactic genocide

>>10414626
if you take a quick '3rd person' look at this planet they would never come in contact with... the same reason we don't contact some tribes in amazon/india

>>10412524
I'm pretty sure that's not how math works.

>>10414626
But what if there's extraterrestrial forms of life that are still on a basic survival lifestyle ? They would be the main target of others developed aliens amirite?

>>10412524
Or maybe you're infinitely lucky to be born now and experience free internet before its corporate ban in 2032. Trust me.

>>10414650
good thing 'pretty' doesn't count in math then. he is right, just his conclusion is skewed

>>10412524
>>10413567
>The Copernican principle says that a bacteria is equally likely to find itself at any position n of the total population N. A single bacteria can reproduce and cause a chain of dividing that causes 4,722,366,482,869,645,213,696 organisms to be "born" every single day. If we think bacteria will one day dominate the galaxy and live for millions of years, N becomes so large that the probability of a piece of bacteria being reproduced this early in our history instead of in a future with trillions(^x) of bacteria approaches 0%. It's pretty depressing but everything suggests that, for some reason, bacteria will end sometime in the near future.
You're kind of embarrassing yourself here faggot.

As much as i would love for humanity to move out into space. I mean, i would really love it. Im a mentally nihilist who hates everything, and the idea of actually for real real becoming a space civilization turns me back into an innocent little boy who was happy about the future.

Its not going to happen.

There are just too many obstacles and realities.

The only reason we even went to the moon in the first place was because of the cold war. The capitalist scum that run the world are happy just to focus on profit. Not some grand project for the betterment of humanity.

and well there are the realities of the known and closest planets.

like how they have no oxygen, food, water, and if you live there you get zapped with cosmic radiation

>>10410410
I have high believes that we will be but not without another war and colossal bullshits that will be happening in the next future.

People don't like to change and don't understand the nature of this universe at all. Peoples always changing site's some of them are liberals some of them are conservatives and they don't realize that without both we actually can't do nothing.

We need to move but stay humans... it can be done but peoples will never change until something happen like war.

The biggest problem of this society is that we can't trust anybody anymore... we don't trust media, we don't trust scientist we don't trust companies we don't trust our neighbors we don't trust our wife's and etc... it's not like we don't have right to do such a thing because they are giving us reasons.

Even scientist will say that we need to do something in order to save our lifes we will never do it because half of us never trust them and half of us are sheep's that will do anything even jump from 11th floor. So yes current system is falling in progress.

>>10415746
This. I used to be a transhumanist and wanted to live forever, i thought humanity would pass all of the obstacles and get out of the earth, etc. Now i know it won't happen and i'm just a nihilist, tho reading these things again remindes me to these old days when i thought everything would git gud

>>10410410
The Kardeshev scale is retarded. Upon discovering efficent nuclear fusion why would any civilization ever move past the dyson swarm stage? There comes a point where manipulating the universe has less to do with technology, and more to do with autism. Why would anyone capable of exploring a near infinite number of planets spend time autistically hoarding resources? Like, mofo the universe is going to end at some point, may as well make the best of it and see some cool shit.

>>10417438
>Why would anyone capable of exploring a near infinite number of planets spend time autistically hoarding resources?
>Like, mofo the universe is going to end at some point
That's why.