Doomsday Argument - Revision history

DavidB4-bot: clean up & uniformity

2016-07-13T11:46:12Z

clean up & uniformity

TagoPagdaluhong: Undo revision 456363 by Special:Contributions/CorySmith (User talk:CorySmith)

2008-05-19T03:55:35Z

Undo revision 456363 by Special:Contributions/CorySmith (User talk:CorySmith)

CorySmith: CONSERVAPEDIA IS A BIASED AND BIGOT ENCYCLOPEDIA. I, A MARTYR OF WIKIPEDIA, DECLARE WAR ON THIS PITIFUL COVEN OF RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS

2008-05-19T03:32:51Z

CONSERVAPEDIA IS A BIASED AND BIGOT ENCYCLOPEDIA. I, A MARTYR OF WIKIPEDIA, DECLARE WAR ON THIS PITIFUL COVEN OF RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS

CSGuy at 21:50, March 21, 2008

2008-03-21T21:50:40Z

Jaques at 00:19, April 9, 2007

2007-04-09T00:19:57Z

Jaques at 11:20, April 6, 2007

2007-04-06T11:20:53Z

CatWatcher at 07:33, April 6, 2007

2007-04-06T07:33:45Z

CatWatcher at 07:28, April 6, 2007

2007-04-06T07:28:43Z

CatWatcher at 07:28, April 6, 2007

2007-04-06T07:28:02Z

CatWatcher at 07:27, April 6, 2007

2007-04-06T07:27:34Z

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 A summary of the argument is as follows:
-''If the world were to end soon, then the population of the world as it now stands is approx one tenth of the total population of humans who have ever lived. However, if the world were not to end tomorrow, our current population is probably around one billionth of the population of humans who will ever live. In choosing between these two scenarios, the fact that I am now living to ask the question allows me to calculate the probability that the world will end soon, and this turns out to be of the order of 99.999999%'' <ref> Summary of the argument adapted from: Aranyosi,I.A., (2004), The Doomsday Simulation Argument; available from http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001590/</ref>
+''If the world were to end soon, then the population of the world as it now stands is approx one tenth of the total population of humans who have ever lived. However, if the world were not to end tomorrow, our current population is probably around one billionth of the population of humans who will ever live. In choosing between these two scenarios, the fact that I am now living to ask the question allows me to calculate the probability that the world will end soon, and this turns out to be of the order of 99.999999%'' <ref>Summary of the argument adapted from: Aranyosi,I.A., (2004), The Doomsday Simulation Argument; available from http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001590/</ref>
-The first person to discover the result was astrophysicist [[Brandon Carter]], and it was later published by philosopher [[John Leslie]], a prolific author on the subject <ref> Leslie, J. , (1996), The End of the World, Routledge </ref>. Versions of the Doomsday argument have also been independently discovered by other authors. In recent years, there have been numerous papers trying to refute the argument, and an approximately equal number of papers refuting these refutations.<ref> See for example: [[Nick Bostrom]]'s summary on http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer1.html </ref>
+The first person to discover the result was astrophysicist [[Brandon Carter]], and it was later published by philosopher [[John Leslie]], a prolific author on the subject.<ref>Leslie, J. , (1996), The End of the World, Routledge</ref> Versions of the Doomsday argument have also been independently discovered by other authors. In recent years, there have been numerous papers trying to refute the argument, and an approximately equal number of papers refuting these refutations.<ref>See for example: [[Nick Bostrom]]'s summary on http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer1.html</ref>
 ==References==
 <references/>
-[[category:philosophy]]
+[[Category:Philosophy]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:55, May 19, 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~CONSERVAPEDIA IS~~ A ~~BIASED AND BIGOT ENCYCLOPEDIA~~. I, A ~~MARTYR OF WIKIPEDIA~~, ~~DECLARE WAR ON THIS PITIFUL COVEN OF RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS~~	+	The '''Doomsday Argument''' is a philosophical argument which uses [[Bayes Theorem]] and the [[Anthropic principle\|The Weak Anthropic Principle]] to make the startling prediction that the end of the world is nigh.
		+
		+	A summary of the argument is as follows:
		+
		+	''If the world were to end soon, then the population of the world as it now stands is approx one tenth of the total population of humans who have ever lived. However, if the world were not to end tomorrow, our current population is probably around one billionth of the population of humans who will ever live. In choosing between these two scenarios, the fact that I am now living to ask the question allows me to calculate the probability that the world will end soon, and this turns out to be of the order of 99.999999%'' <ref> Summary of the argument adapted from: Aranyosi,I.A., (2004), The Doomsday Simulation Argument; available from http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001590/</ref>
		+
		+	The first person to discover the result was astrophysicist [[Brandon Carter]], and it was later published by philosopher [[John Leslie]], a prolific author on the subject <ref> Leslie, J. , (1996), The End of the World, Routledge </ref>. Versions of the Doomsday argument have also been independently discovered by other authors. In recent years, there have been numerous papers trying to refute the argument, and an approximately equal number of papers refuting these refutations.<ref> See for example: [[Nick Bostrom]]'s summary on http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer1.html </ref>
		+	==References==
		+	<references/>
		+	[[category:philosophy]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:32, May 19, 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The '''Doomsday Argument''' is a philosophical argument which uses [[Bayes Theorem]] and the [[Anthropic principle\|The Weak Anthropic Principle]] to make the startling prediction that the end of the world is nigh.	+	CONSERVAPEDIA IS A BIASED AND BIGOT ENCYCLOPEDIA. I, A MARTYR OF WIKIPEDIA, DECLARE WAR ON THIS PITIFUL COVEN OF RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS
−
−	A ~~summary of the argument is as follows:~~
−
−	''If the world were to end soon, then the population of the world as it now stands is approx one tenth of the total population of humans who have ever lived. However, if the world were not to end tomorrow, our current population is probably around one billionth of the population of humans who will ever live. ~~In choosing between these two scenarios, the fact that~~ I am now living to ask the question allows me to calculate the probability that the world will end soon, and this turns out to be of the order of 99.999999%'' <ref> Summary of the argument adapted from: Aranyosi,I.A., ~~(2004), The Doomsday Simulation Argument; available from http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001590/</ref>~~
−
−	The first person to discover the result was astrophysicist [[Brandon Carter]], and it was later published by philosopher [[John Leslie]], a prolific author on the subject <ref> Leslie, J. , (1996), The End of the World, Routledge </ref>. Versions of the Doomsday argument have also been independently discovered by other authors. In recent years, there have been numerous papers trying to refute the argument, and an approximately equal number of papers refuting these refutations.<ref> See for example: [[Nick Bostrom]]'s summary on http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer1.html </ref>
−	~~==References==~~
−	~~<references/>~~
−	~~[[category:philosophy]]~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:50, March 21, 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The Doomsday Argument is a philosophical argument which uses [[Bayes Theorem]] and the [[Anthropic principle\|The Weak Anthropic Principle]] to make the startling prediction that the end of the world is nigh.	+	The '''Doomsday Argument''' is a philosophical argument which uses [[Bayes Theorem]] and the [[Anthropic principle\|The Weak Anthropic Principle]] to make the startling prediction that the end of the world is nigh.

	A summary of the argument is as follows:		A summary of the argument is as follows:

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 The first person to discover the result was astrophysicist [[Brandon Carter]], and it was later published by philosopher [[John Leslie]], a prolific author on the subject <ref> Leslie, J. , (1996), The End of the World, Routledge </ref>. Versions of the Doomsday argument have also been independently discovered by other authors. In recent years, there have been numerous papers trying to refute the argument, and an approximately equal number of papers refuting these refutations.<ref> See for example: [[Nick Bostrom]]'s summary on http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer1.html </ref>
+==References==
 <references/>
 [[category:philosophy]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:20, April 6, 2007
Line 8:		Line 8:

	<references/>		<references/>
		+	[[category:philosophy]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 A summary of the argument is as follows:
-''If the world were to end soon, then the population of the world as it now stands is approx one tenth of the total population of humans who have ever lived. However, if the world were not to end tomorrow, our current population is probably around one billionth of the population of humans who will ever live. In choosing between these two scenarios, the fact that I am now living to ask the question allows me to calculate the probability that the world will end soon, and this turns out to be of the order of 99.999999%'' <ref> Summary of the argument adapted from [Aranyosi,I.A. (2004), The Doomsday Simulation Argument available from [http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001590/]</ref>
+''If the world were to end soon, then the population of the world as it now stands is approx one tenth of the total population of humans who have ever lived. However, if the world were not to end tomorrow, our current population is probably around one billionth of the population of humans who will ever live. In choosing between these two scenarios, the fact that I am now living to ask the question allows me to calculate the probability that the world will end soon, and this turns out to be of the order of 99.999999%'' <ref> Summary of the argument adapted from [Aranyosi,I.A. (2004), The Doomsday Simulation Argument available from http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001590/</ref>
-The first person to discover the result was astrophysicist [[Brandon Carter]], and it was later published by philosopher [[John Leslie]], a prolific author on the subject <ref> Leslie, J. , 1996, The End of the World, Routledge </ref>. Versions of the Doomsday argument have also been independently discovered by other authors. In recent years, there have been numerous papers trying to refute the argument, and an approximately equal number of papers refuting these refutations.<ref> See for example: [[Nick Bostrom]]'s summary on [http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer1.html] </ref>
+The first person to discover the result was astrophysicist [[Brandon Carter]], and it was later published by philosopher [[John Leslie]], a prolific author on the subject <ref> Leslie, J. , 1996, The End of the World, Routledge </ref>. Versions of the Doomsday argument have also been independently discovered by other authors. In recent years, there have been numerous papers trying to refute the argument, and an approximately equal number of papers refuting these refutations.<ref> See for example: [[Nick Bostrom]]'s summary on http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer1.html </ref>
 <references/>

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:28, April 6, 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:

	The first person to discover the result was astrophysicist [[Brandon Carter]], and it was later published by philosopher [[John Leslie]], a prolific author on the subject <ref> Leslie, J. , 1996, The End of the World, Routledge </ref>. Versions of the Doomsday argument have also been independently discovered by other authors. In recent years, there have been numerous papers trying to refute the argument, and an approximately equal number of papers refuting these refutations.<ref> See for example: [[Nick Bostrom]]'s summary on [http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer1.html] </ref>		The first person to discover the result was astrophysicist [[Brandon Carter]], and it was later published by philosopher [[John Leslie]], a prolific author on the subject <ref> Leslie, J. , 1996, The End of the World, Routledge </ref>. Versions of the Doomsday argument have also been independently discovered by other authors. In recent years, there have been numerous papers trying to refute the argument, and an approximately equal number of papers refuting these refutations.<ref> See for example: [[Nick Bostrom]]'s summary on [http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer1.html] </ref>
		+
		+	<references/>

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:27, April 6, 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The Doomsday Argument is a philosophical argument which uses [[Bayes Theorem]] and the [[The Anthropic Principle]] to make the startling prediction that the end of the world is nigh.	+	The Doomsday Argument is a philosophical argument which uses [[Bayes Theorem]] and the [[Anthropic principle\|The Weak Anthropic Principle]] to make the startling prediction that the end of the world is nigh.

	A summary of the argument is as follows:		A summary of the argument is as follows: