dsdsd

Y2K was the end of the world. Now we are afterworld.

I am sorry for my last comment. I didn't want to insult anyone. I was drunk when I wrote it.

It seems it is not going for you to comprehend my point. But that is the destiny of the regular enlightenment. I thought of ways I can express clearer, in ways that you can understand, but hope is lost.
You just don't get it. That we are doomed.
Fascinated by your own well-being you just do not see the global picture. That is OK. I can bear the loneliness of my tremendous wisdom. Pity that despite, we are going to die together.
Just a final question:
Do you regard us as regular, normal representatives of mankind? By us I mean our generation.
Answer honestly and straight to the question. I take it philosophically this time, because I got it that you are not quite OK with maths, especially with probability theories.
So in a nutshell do you consider yourselves regular representatives of you species?

I'm pretty sure I exist. :)

@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev said "I think you are denying it inconsiderately." Well consider your theory in regard to the first human being then - not me, not you, the FIRST human to ever walk this land: What are the chances of others to exist after him/her? By your theory: zero! (There is of course no absolute proof that we exist but in the context of this discussion I assume we do.)

@mipmip, @Valentin_Ivanov, I am not certain in what I'm saying here, but I think you are denying it inconsiderately. I need some more time to think about this. Maybe a couple of months, maybe more...

the probability of ME living NOW is 1 then :D

@mipmip, "the probability of YOU living NOW is 1".
You cannot be sure that I didn't die in the gap between my last post and this one :)

@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev said "Take one specific dinosaur. When did this dinosaur most likely lived?" If it's a specific dino it lived during the 10, 30, 50 years of its lifespan, exactly! And that's because you take a specific instance out of the whole. Again: you can't use probabilities with a specific instance; i.e. the probability of YOU living NOW is 1. Fact of life.

@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev: You can't find the probability of a recurring event (birth) based on ONE instance of the event. That would give you probability of 1 for current human life and probability of 0 for past and future life. There's your flaw.

@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev What you're saying goes against basic probability theory.
.
As I mentioned, your theory works only in the past where you know the range of possible incomes and you also know the clustering of possible incomes. Your theory cannot work in an environment where you have no idea about the range of possible outcomes and their clustering.

I see no reason to assume N is more likely to be 10 than 10'000'000? It goes against basic probability theory.

@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev I disagree. I can't know what N is. There's no reason to assume it is 10, rather than 10'000 or 10'000'000 or 10'000'000'000 or whatever.

@Valentin_Ivanov. Okay, let's take you example.
You pick a random number from 1 to N. You don't know what N is, but you know the number you picked. Let's say you picked 5 as in your example. Knowing these facts only can you know what N is. No, never for sure. It could be 5, 6, 10000000 or greater.
But I say that the N=10 is much more probable than n=1 000 000? You don't agree?

@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev Let's make things simpler. The number of human beings who will ever live is a finite number. You cannot assume (or guess) where the mean of this sequence is, if you don't know how long this sequence of numbers is, if you basically don't know anything about this sequence of numbers. If you arrive at a point where the sequence of numbers has reached its end - YES, you can make assumptions then. Not before.
.
Once you know that the sequence of numbers started at 1 and finished at 1'000'000'000 and that 70% of the numbers are clustered around some point, then yes, you can make conclusions.

Right now you have some numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... You don't know where this sequence of numbers will end. You don't know anything about it. And somehow you assume that number 5 should be around the mean. Why?

@Valentin_Ivanov, You cannot know the future, but you consider the possible outcomes. To make things simple we can assume that there are only 2 outcomes - A) humans go extinct soon and B) humans species live long.
If A) - we are in the statistical mean, because we have lived when the humans are most abundant.
If B) - we live in the dawn of mankind. Statistically less probable, but not impossible.
The more you go towards B), the lesser the probability.

@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev This is a logical fallacy.
.
If the human race ended in 1bn years and you transported yourself to that day and picked a random human who lived throughout history, yeah I agree that chances are - you would pick a human who existed during the period that humans had been most abundant on earth. But in this scenario YOU WOULD KNOW THE PAST. You know the distribution of possible outcomes. Your theory works only if you KNOW THE PAST.
.
Right now, you have an unknown and unknowable factor - THE FUTURE. You cannot apply the same logic, because no-one can see in the future. You don't know when the humans will be most abundant. If you transport yourself to the future when humankind has ended - you know when humans had been most abundant. From the present's point of view, you don't know that. That's a huge difference.

@Valentin_Ivanov, Then we are screwed to live now, i.e. in the very beginning of intelligent life on Earth. It would have been so much more fun to live in the future.

@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev You don't know the distribution of humans living throughout human existence. Therefore, you cannot pick a random human (yourself) and assume that chances are -- you are somewhere around the mean. It's like picking the number 1000 and saying, "well, chances are this number is around the mean." You don't know the range and distribution of possible numbers. You don't have the benefit of hindsight, therefore you cannot assume like that.
.
With dinosaurs it is easier. You know when they began and ended. You know when they were most abundant. Therefore, yeah, picking a random dinosaur would likely result in picking one who lived around the time they were most abundant.
.
Basically, it boils down to this - your theory works when applied in the past. You KNOW the past. No-one can predict the future. Your theory cannot be applied to the future.

@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev Your example with dinosaurs is not relevant, because you have the benefit of hindsight. You know when dinosaurs appeared and disappeared.
.
You don't know that about humans. You don't know when humans will be most abundant. Why do you assume it is the present? Not every human (or dinosaur) is born during the most abundant period of the existence of the species. I don't see any reason (theoretical or empirical) to believe this is the most abundant period of human existence. Saying "otherwise you would have been born in the future" does no count.

Well, I did. It's like saying "A pink unicorn in Andromeda constellation created the Universe." It simply cannot be proved or disproved.

@Valentin_Ivanov, Again, you are not saying what EXACTLY looks wrong with the theory to you?

And specifically about your theory: how do you know you were not born in the future? It would appear as the present to you. Therefore, this theory has no ground to step on -- it cannot be proved or disproved.

@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev So, if I am following your logic correctly: some theories were judged absurd by the public in the in past, but were later proved to be correct. You come up with an absurd theory now. Therefore, it has a good chance of being proven correct in the future. Ooooooooookay.

@Valentin_Ivanov, I know how absurd it might look, but so were many theories when they were first expressed. No, I was not drunk (by the time I expressed it), and it sounds strange to me too, but I cannot find a flaw in this theory. Can you point out what exactly looks ridiculous to you?

@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev This is a ridiculous point of view. Unless you are joking, I must assume you are drunk. :)

Who knows for sure?