P(There are m total humans | You are human number n) = P(You are human number n | There are m total humans) * P(You are human number n) / P(There are m total humans)
If P(You are human number n | There are m total humans) came out to equal n/m, it would work fine. It doesn’t.
P(You are human number n | There are m total humans) = P(You are human number n | There are m total humans & You are human) * P(You are human | There are m total humans)
= n/m * P(You are human | There are m total humans)
If P(You are human | There are m total humans) was constant, it would still work. The problem is, it’s not. It only works out that way if the number of observers is proportional to the number of humans. For example, if almost all life is either human, or wildlife on planets humans terraformed.
Yes, you can’t. At least, not if you do it right.
P(There are m total humans | You are human number n) = P(You are human number n | There are m total humans) * P(You are human number n) / P(There are m total humans)
If P(You are human number n | There are m total humans) came out to equal n/m, it would work fine. It doesn’t.
P(You are human number n | There are m total humans) = P(You are human number n | There are m total humans & You are human) * P(You are human | There are m total humans)
= n/m * P(You are human | There are m total humans)
If P(You are human | There are m total humans) was constant, it would still work. The problem is, it’s not. It only works out that way if the number of observers is proportional to the number of humans. For example, if almost all life is either human, or wildlife on planets humans terraformed.
Ok, intresting point. But the fact than I am human is strong evidence that most sentient life is human.
Like the fact that i am in middle class tells that large part of people also is middle class.