Am I mistaken, or is the last part of the reasoning why we are likely to witness Doomsday not part of the original Doomsday argument?
I quote: Something like one fifth of all the people who have ever lived are alive today. The odds of being one of the people to witness doomsday are highest when there is the largest number of witnesses around- so now is not such an improbable time.
That doesn't sound right to me: The likelihood that someone witnesses Doomsday does not increase with the size of the earth's population. If and when it finally hits, odds are that everyone will notice. IMHO, this implies that the number of potential witnesses does not have any influence on the likelihood of Doomsday happening. Or am I completely on the wrong track here?
As an aside: Am I really the only person who doesn't see the end of mankind as synonymous with the end of the world. In fact, with us gone, nature might get a second lease on life. Or is that a case of 'If earth spins on, and there is noone here to watch it, does it still spin?'?
Slashdot Mirror
Something like one fifth of all the people who have ever lived are alive today. The odds of being one of the people to witness doomsday are highest when there is the largest number of witnesses around- so now is not such an improbable time.
That doesn't sound right to me: The likelihood that someone witnesses Doomsday does not increase with the size of the earth's population. If and when it finally hits, odds are that everyone will notice. IMHO, this implies that the number of potential witnesses does not have any influence on the likelihood of Doomsday happening. Or am I completely on the wrong track here?
As an aside: Am I really the only person who doesn't see the end of mankind as synonymous with the end of the world. In fact, with us gone, nature might get a second lease on life. Or is that a case of 'If earth spins on, and there is noone here to watch it, does it still spin?'?
Take care and don't get extinct without me...