The Doomsday Argument essentially is a set of equations that can be used to roughly calculate how long it is until humanity is dead. It uses the number of people in the world and uses it to predict how far along the humanity timeline we are. It takes the number of people alive, the number of people who have existed, and the probability that we will be alive while that number is true, and uses it to find out how likely we are to be on every possible amount of time away from being dead. There are three ways to look at it. Nuclear weapons DA: This only uses people who were alive during or after the Trinity Test to determine that within the next 50 years there's a 50% chance we'll all die. It only estimates the probability of atomic destruction, not by any other means. "Standard" DA: All humans are counted. 95% chance we're dead in 9000 years to go. Self Sampling DA: Not humans, but "sampling points"-possible times the equation can be used, assuming it can be used instantaneously and infinetely. This predicts a 95% chance for 4000 years. Philosophically, there's another way to look at it: Self Referencing DA. This says that only people who know and understand this equation are considered by it. For every 1 person that understands it, 20 people are counted as having considered it, and all 21 are counted in the final equation. To me the Self Sampling version makes more sense, since it doesn't necessarily predict human endurance-just intelligence. This allows for extra variables like intelligent aliens. What are your thoughts on this stuff? Ever considered you might eventually die, jumjum? :p A Primer on the Doomsday Argument Critiquing the Doomsday Argument And of course there's wiki.

Doomsday predictions are as useless as an appendix. Usually doomsday predictions come around important events, example:

Turn of the century 1999 to 2000...End Of World Predictions

9/11 - End Of World

Barack Obama Election - End Of World

Iraq Invasion - End Of World

The Mayan calendar which everyone loves to reference is in no way related to the end of the world, in-fact the significance of its end is about the Planetary Alignment, I speculate that the mayans were able to calculate this, and when they saw it marked it on their calendar as the day a major event would happen in their civilization. Unfortunately they never lived to see the day.

And im not about to believe a Calculator or a Clock about the end of the world.

I take what n0e says way too seriously

**50** XP

**9th April 2005**

**0** Uploads

**2,794** Posts

**0** Threads

9000 years!? HAH! they might have an argument for society as we know it, but not humanity. filthy mathematicians meddling in paleontology.

You know the Mayans couldnt have written a calnder that went on forever. At some point someone put the pencil down!!!

the mayan calendar is made up so that it has to 'end' sometimes, only to start all over. Something like 2008 were 1 second longer than earlier years, to put the calendar on schedule, about the same goes with the mayan calendar. (or something like that)

Good point. 1000 years from now someone might discover our calendar and freak out every year!

You are all noobs. You are way too smart too discuss this topic properly. You lack the simplicity to believe in this seriously. Damned education. If I wouldn't have been banned from a certain gaming forum due to constant smart remarks and verbal fights with the admins about game related topics (no, as far as I know I'm not banned on WOLF and the forum wasn't WOLF), I could present a nice list of links and a line of argumentation underlaying the thesis of an upcoming doomsday, based on the mayan calendar, the claim of asteroids hitting the earth in 2012 and various other things that have been discussed seriously there. Unfortunately I spend all my time laughing, not remembering any links or arguments at all, only having linked to The Flat Earth Society stating that asteroids cannot hit earth as it is flat. I probably got this link from these forums.

Forgive me lord, for being that insensitive regarding this topic again. But I had 2 beer and that probably loosened my tongue. I should go to bed, right?

Even assuming such a formula is valid (and it looks pretty arbitrary to me), remember: GIGO.

It uses the number of people in the world and uses it to predict how far along the humanity timeline we are. It takes the number of people alive, the number of people who have existed, and the probability that we will be alive while that number is true, and uses it to find out how likely we are to be on every possible amount of time away from being dead.

I don't think it's possible for this equation to be a very, very rough approximation (as in, its good if its within an order of magnitude of the actual figure), since calculating the number of people who have existed is so tricky, and it becomes hard to identify exactly who is Homo Sapiens and who isn't way back in the evolutionary timeline.

I would just like to know who the depressed people are that like to sit around a table and calculate when we are going to all die.

- 1
- 2