HN Explorer

Ask HN: What is the probability of being human?

9 points by amichail ↗ HN
It seems that there is a much greater probability of being an insect say. There are an estimated 10000000000000000000 (10 quintillion) insects alive on Earth.

So are you extremely lucky? Or is there some other explanation?

18 comments

[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 41.1 ms ] thread
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
mbrubeck
On the other hand, the probability that you ask yourself "Am I human or insect" and answer "insect" is very low. Unless you are in a Kafka novel.
amichail
Why does it matter whether an entity is capable of contemplating this question?

What matters is whether it has consciousness/self-awareness.

mbrubeck
When you say, "So are you extremely lucky? Or is there some other explanation?" you presuppose that "you" are in fact lucky, and you do that because you know there are no insects reading Hacker News or otherwise thinking about this issue.
frossie
Paging the Reverend Thomas Bayes...

Seriously it doesn't work like that. The probability of me being an insect is 0 - in fact the probability of me being anybody else besides me is 0, unless you are in metaphysical territory (eg. reincarnation), in which case please stop using Gaussian probability theory as its warranty only covers use in the physical world.

amichail
The probability that you are human given that you are human is obviously 1.

That's not what I am asking.

Is there some plausible (possibly metaphysical) explanation besides that you were extremely lucky?

tdoggette
There is no "me" that ever had a non-one probability of being human. There is no great lottery from which each entity is chosen to be one thing or another.
nostrademons
If you weren't extremely lucky, you wouldn't be asking the question.
amichail
Why does it matter whether an entity is capable of asking this question?

What matters is whether it has consciousness/self-awareness.

Retric
Think of it this way, if you and 100 million other people all buy a lottery ticket and you win the jackpot you might ask why me? Yet, assume the odds someone would win was 90%, and the odds that the winner would ask the question was also 90%. Now what's unusual about the person asking the question?

nothing

And what's unusual about someone winning?

nothing

mbrubeck
It's even more likely that you are a rock. Or a star. Or an electron.

Except it's not, because you can't be an electron, if "you" means "someone contemplating this question" (or any other non-trivial, relevant meaning of "you").

amichail
You don't need an entity that is capable of contemplating this question to be conscious/self-aware.
frossie
plausible (possibly metaphysical)

Sorry, you just blew my fuse by using plausible and metaphysical in the same sentence. Maybe somebody else can help you with that.

To repeat, luck has nothing to do with it because there is no consciousness allocating lottery. It's like saying "the universe is 99.9[...]9% empty space, ain't I lucky to be on a planet?". Luck does not apply, as the chance of you being born in empty space is exactly 0.

dmg_83
I think if the universe is deterministic the probability is 1 and if it is not the probability is definitely 0 (like a random real being rational).
kd5bjo
Your question is ill-formed, and cannot be answered without further information. In particular, you haven't specified the domain of inquiry. If you're asking about the probability that a person reading your question is human, the answer is close to 1. If, on the other hand, you're asking about the probability that a group of protons, neutrons, and electrons form themselves into a human, it is vanishingly small.
devijvers
Your first error is ontological: there is no known cause for being. Hence, since we don't know how being works, how can we extrapolate it mathematically?

Your second error is metaphysical: you assume you exist. You assume your existence can be validated or confirmed. However, there is no such thing. There is no way you or anybody else can prove they exist.

Your third error is perceptive: you assume others exist, and you assume animals exist. You assume the physical world you perceive is 'real'. This perception - albeit probably a very persistent one - cannot be proven to be 'real', meaning that perception is a lousy basis for ontological statements.

Your fourth error is that you're confused. You assume there is a distribution mechanism for existence, let alone a consistent and predictable one.

In short, your question is unanswerable. The only sane thing to do is to reject it as best as we can, maybe somebody learns something.