I think you could judge the validity of the conclusion by adding uncertainty ranges for each of the ratios you state. It may be the case that the overall range is so large that the final term is effectively meaningless.
The probability for things existing and it doing interesting stuff, such that it creates life is 100%, because in every universe without this property, the question never comes up. This may sound like a silly nitpick, but you actually cannot assign probabilities to states that don't exist in within your system. Otherwise you will get paradoxical result.
The envelope paradox is a simple illustration of this. Let's say there are two envelops. One contains x amount of dollars, the other one contains double that. You blindly open one envelope and it contains 100$. Now, the other envelope may either contain 50$ or 200$, yielding an expected value of 125$. This means that it is always profitable to take the second envelope instead of the first one, which is paradoxical because you would get the same result of you started with the second envelope (then the first one would look favorable). The problem is that we cannot assign probabilities to the question of how much money is in the second envelope. If the second envelope contains 200$, that means there never was an envelope with 50$ in it. This is different from a coin toss, because even if it lands on heads, tails is still included in the system of probabilities. The 50$ envelope is outside of the system. Its probability values are undefined.
How did you do your equation? Plug and chug each successive step or one big equation? I’d like to do this myself, but my Big-Brain Bayesianism is mostly LARP and every time I’ve tried it’s gone horribly wrong
Why'd you do my boy Graham Oppy like that? There are photos of him that don't look like a pixelated murderer :)
I think you could judge the validity of the conclusion by adding uncertainty ranges for each of the ratios you state. It may be the case that the overall range is so large that the final term is effectively meaningless.
The probability for things existing and it doing interesting stuff, such that it creates life is 100%, because in every universe without this property, the question never comes up. This may sound like a silly nitpick, but you actually cannot assign probabilities to states that don't exist in within your system. Otherwise you will get paradoxical result.
The envelope paradox is a simple illustration of this. Let's say there are two envelops. One contains x amount of dollars, the other one contains double that. You blindly open one envelope and it contains 100$. Now, the other envelope may either contain 50$ or 200$, yielding an expected value of 125$. This means that it is always profitable to take the second envelope instead of the first one, which is paradoxical because you would get the same result of you started with the second envelope (then the first one would look favorable). The problem is that we cannot assign probabilities to the question of how much money is in the second envelope. If the second envelope contains 200$, that means there never was an envelope with 50$ in it. This is different from a coin toss, because even if it lands on heads, tails is still included in the system of probabilities. The 50$ envelope is outside of the system. Its probability values are undefined.
How did you do your equation? Plug and chug each successive step or one big equation? I’d like to do this myself, but my Big-Brain Bayesianism is mostly LARP and every time I’ve tried it’s gone horribly wrong
I'd be happy to see you revisit this in a few months and update us either that you think this reasoning stands or that you have revisions.