What do you think?
Rate this book
The Doomsday Calculation: How an Equation that Predicts the Future Is Transforming Everything We Know About Life and the Universe
From the author of Are You Smart Enough to Work at Google? , a fascinating look at how an equation that foretells the future is transforming everything we know about life, business, and the universe.
In the 18th century, the British minister and mathematician Thomas Bayes devised a theorem that allowed him to assign probabilities to events that had never happened before. It languished in obscurity for centuries until computers came along and made it easy to crunch the numbers. Now, as the foundation of big data, Bayes' formula has become a linchpin of the digital economy.
But here's where things get really Bayes' theorem can also be used to lay odds on the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence; on whether we live in a Matrix-like counterfeit of reality; on the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum theory being correct; and on the biggest question of how long will humanity survive?
The Doomsday Calculation tells how Silicon Valley's profitable formula became a controversial pivot of contemporary thought. Drawing on interviews with thought leaders around the globe, it's the story of a group of intellectual mavericks who are challenging what we thought we knew about our place in the universe. The Doomsday Calculation is compelling reading for anyone interested in our culture and its future.
In the 18th century, the British minister and mathematician Thomas Bayes devised a theorem that allowed him to assign probabilities to events that had never happened before. It languished in obscurity for centuries until computers came along and made it easy to crunch the numbers. Now, as the foundation of big data, Bayes' formula has become a linchpin of the digital economy.
But here's where things get really Bayes' theorem can also be used to lay odds on the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence; on whether we live in a Matrix-like counterfeit of reality; on the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum theory being correct; and on the biggest question of how long will humanity survive?
The Doomsday Calculation tells how Silicon Valley's profitable formula became a controversial pivot of contemporary thought. Drawing on interviews with thought leaders around the globe, it's the story of a group of intellectual mavericks who are challenging what we thought we knew about our place in the universe. The Doomsday Calculation is compelling reading for anyone interested in our culture and its future.
320 pages, Hardcover
Published June 4, 2019
123 people are currently reading
2066 people want to read
About the author
William Poundstone
54 books362 followersWilliam Poundstone is the author of more than ten non-fiction books, including 'Fortune's Formula', which was the Amazon Editors' Pick for #1 non-fiction book of 2005. Poundstone has written for The New York Times, Psychology Today, Esquire, Harpers, The Economist, and Harvard Business Review. He has appeared on the Today Show, The David Letterman Show and hundreds of radio talk-shows throughout the world. Poundstone studied physics at MIT and many of his ideas concern the social and financial impact of scientific ideas. His books have sold over half a million copies worldwide.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews
April 19, 2019
The End Is Near for far more reasons that you think
If you think the scientific arguments over climate change are harrowing, let William Poundstone take you on a tour of Man’s inevitable extinction. There are theories from every angle, and just as many experts ready to refute or at least denounce them, often in very colorful terms.
The Doomsday Calculation is a book of math, specifically probability. Gladstone tries to educate readers in the history, lore and application of probability. There was a great turning point at the time of Copernicus, and ever since, Man has been trying to predict things mathematically. Ultimately, the book is about how much readers might or should believe predictions for the extinction of Man, based purely on the math.
The era of probability really took off a couple of hundred years after Copernicus, when an unpublished paper by Thomas Bayes was discovered. It ushered in all kinds of practical applications and has been instrumental in running the world ever since, and moreso every day. Yet arguments over its application to mankind itself are, to put it mildly, fraught.
When scientists look at Man they see a fairly typical Earth life form. They come and go, like everything else, and there’s little reason to think Man will be the exception that proves the rule. After all, there have been a dozen variants of Homo, and sapiens is the only one still around, he points out.
As bright as the future might be, Man has severe limitations. He must carry his environment around with him, his food needs are outlandish by comparison to any other species’ requirements, and his lifetime is nothing to brag about on a galactic scale. J. Richard Gott, the current pope of probability, says the likelihood of Man colonizing other planets in the galaxy is one in a billion.
Meanwhile, there are numerous threats at home, any of which could wipe out the species. Mathematically, the more successful Man is (in sheer numbers), the more the threats to survival are real. From insufficient food and water, to disease and overcrowding, there is ample reason to doubt this will go on much longer. Then there is the manmade threat collection, from nuclear war to unbreathable air on down. And there are galactic factors, from meteorites to crashing galaxies, a swelling sun and a breakup of the solar system.
Running the numbers, physicist Willard Wells says the only hope for man’s survival is an apocalyptic event that nearly wipes out the species. Mathematically, that would greatly reduce the chances of total extinction. This is the kind of probability theory Gladstone explores.
The book breaks out all those themes and more. Gladstone examines odds of similar or identical worlds and civilizations, the reasons extraterrestrials don’t visit or write, the quantum makeup of the universe, and the theory that our universe is merely an expanding bubble among possibly an infinite number of such universe bubbles, separated by high force vacuums that prevent anyone seeing to the next bubble.
Back on Earth. Gladstone shows that probability theories work and have more or less successfully predicted any number of things that needed no predicting. Artificial intelligence comes in for a particular thrashing. All by itself, AI is capable of running Man off the planet as redundant. Once it starts writing software on its own, the game is over. And there are a lot people in the business who worry about that. Unfortunately, as we have seen in weaponry, gene editing of babies and the over-carboning of everything, the capitalist system encourages the race to the end, regardless of need, benefit or common good. And there is really nothing that can stop it. Short of extinction, that is.
The Doomsday Calculation is a romp through history, cosmology, physics and academics calling each other out. It is fast paced, lightly written and for such a morose topic, totally enjoyable. Strikingly, Gladstone found no theories we could call optimistic. We may not be closer to the beginning than the end, but all the math says the end in near, relatively speaking.
David Wineberg
If you think the scientific arguments over climate change are harrowing, let William Poundstone take you on a tour of Man’s inevitable extinction. There are theories from every angle, and just as many experts ready to refute or at least denounce them, often in very colorful terms.
The Doomsday Calculation is a book of math, specifically probability. Gladstone tries to educate readers in the history, lore and application of probability. There was a great turning point at the time of Copernicus, and ever since, Man has been trying to predict things mathematically. Ultimately, the book is about how much readers might or should believe predictions for the extinction of Man, based purely on the math.
The era of probability really took off a couple of hundred years after Copernicus, when an unpublished paper by Thomas Bayes was discovered. It ushered in all kinds of practical applications and has been instrumental in running the world ever since, and moreso every day. Yet arguments over its application to mankind itself are, to put it mildly, fraught.
When scientists look at Man they see a fairly typical Earth life form. They come and go, like everything else, and there’s little reason to think Man will be the exception that proves the rule. After all, there have been a dozen variants of Homo, and sapiens is the only one still around, he points out.
As bright as the future might be, Man has severe limitations. He must carry his environment around with him, his food needs are outlandish by comparison to any other species’ requirements, and his lifetime is nothing to brag about on a galactic scale. J. Richard Gott, the current pope of probability, says the likelihood of Man colonizing other planets in the galaxy is one in a billion.
Meanwhile, there are numerous threats at home, any of which could wipe out the species. Mathematically, the more successful Man is (in sheer numbers), the more the threats to survival are real. From insufficient food and water, to disease and overcrowding, there is ample reason to doubt this will go on much longer. Then there is the manmade threat collection, from nuclear war to unbreathable air on down. And there are galactic factors, from meteorites to crashing galaxies, a swelling sun and a breakup of the solar system.
Running the numbers, physicist Willard Wells says the only hope for man’s survival is an apocalyptic event that nearly wipes out the species. Mathematically, that would greatly reduce the chances of total extinction. This is the kind of probability theory Gladstone explores.
The book breaks out all those themes and more. Gladstone examines odds of similar or identical worlds and civilizations, the reasons extraterrestrials don’t visit or write, the quantum makeup of the universe, and the theory that our universe is merely an expanding bubble among possibly an infinite number of such universe bubbles, separated by high force vacuums that prevent anyone seeing to the next bubble.
Back on Earth. Gladstone shows that probability theories work and have more or less successfully predicted any number of things that needed no predicting. Artificial intelligence comes in for a particular thrashing. All by itself, AI is capable of running Man off the planet as redundant. Once it starts writing software on its own, the game is over. And there are a lot people in the business who worry about that. Unfortunately, as we have seen in weaponry, gene editing of babies and the over-carboning of everything, the capitalist system encourages the race to the end, regardless of need, benefit or common good. And there is really nothing that can stop it. Short of extinction, that is.
The Doomsday Calculation is a romp through history, cosmology, physics and academics calling each other out. It is fast paced, lightly written and for such a morose topic, totally enjoyable. Strikingly, Gladstone found no theories we could call optimistic. We may not be closer to the beginning than the end, but all the math says the end in near, relatively speaking.
David Wineberg
October 9, 2019
This was okay overall, but I had a real problem with the way he set up the mathematical brain teasers that he discussed (e.g. Sleeping Beauty, The Sailor's Child, The Shooting Room). In every case, he either added extraneous information or left information out of the setup that made it hard to understand what was being asked. I've seen this happen before, where an improperly stated premise turns a math puzzle into a word game, but it's especially disappointing here because Poundstone's writing is usually very clear and concise. I'm not saying that this book is a total failure, but a reading will have to be supplemented by a few Google searches in order to get full value.
May 18, 2020
Read an article about this book. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...
I already know the book is useless. Here's how I came to that conclusion, below:
The prediction is right either way. The end of human existence could be 760 years from now, or 400 years from now, or 100,000 years from now, or 12,000,000 years from now and the prediction would still be correct. The information provided by the formula is nothing more than interesting, but useless information. There is a safety net on both sides of the statement, which renders it invulnerable to being incorrect. The fact that chance is involved, is the safety net. The prediction makes no distinction, and no choice. It is indecisive. Not concluded and incomplete. The only statement being made is that we may be half way or we may not be. Of course that's true. Since halves can only come in pairs, otherwise it's not a half. So it's set up to be either one thing or the other thing. It's a rigged statement made to forcefully be correct, but is useless and a waste of time that helps nobody and does not predict when the end of the human race will be. It's a clever way to cut a pie before knowing how big it is. Of course, you can cut a pie in half regardless of how big it is. If we cut the timeline (or pie) in 4 slices, then there is a 25% chance that we could be on either one of those slices. That means there is a 25% chance we are less than a quarter through, 25% chance that we are between a quarter and half, 25% chance that we are between half and three quarters, and 25% that we are between three quarters and the end. Since all of those are equally as likely to be true, it's like saying there's a 100% chance we are currently at any one point of the
timeline and it would fall on one of the quarters if we sectioned it in four. So if it's 50% likely that we are half way or less and 50% likely we are half way or more to human extinction, that means there are two slices that make up the whole pie. Since both slices are equally as likely to be true, they must be equally considered, which means there is an equal chance that we are on either slice of the pie. It's like saying there's a 100% chance we are currently at any one point of the timeline and it would fall on one of the halves if we sectioned it in two. So basically, the formula tells us that there is a point in the timeline of human existence that we are currently at, but we don't know when it will end and we don't know which piece of the timeline we would be on if we decided to make two equal sections with it. The information is literally useless. It may be a correct prediction no matter what because it is assuming human existence will meet an inevitable demise and that means it has an end, which means it also has a center point, which means we are currently on either side of the center point. But it doesn't predict which side. It's like saying the opposite of I don't know. I don't know would mean to stay out of the prediction and not make one, which means you can never be correct, because you didn't make a guess. Well this is literally an indecisive statement disguised as an answer. It's like saying I 50% believe we are less than half way and 50% believe we are more than half way. It's an attempt to be correct even though he doesn't know at all. That's literally no answer. It's a statement with no meaning behind it.
In conclusion, you can't analyze something that is incomplete. The duration of human existence hasn't been completed yet, so it is not even ready for analysis. And, since it is not complete, the duration of human existence doesn't exist yet. Furthermore, there is no use in calculating the possibilities as this event will only happen once, meaning if you don't predict the precise time it will happen, then any prediction of it is a waste, since in reality there is only one possible answer to when humans become extinct; the one and only time that it does. This is because things only happen once and time only moves forward. The equation would have more merit if parallel universes exist where there would be multiple endings to the human race. But even then, if there are an infinite amount of parallel universes, then every single infinitely small point in the timeline of human existence will happen all at once every moment over and over for infinity, which makes every point in the timeline subject to having an equal chance, which serves us no point. And if everything is infinite, everything must be equal, which makes me think there are no parallel universes. This is literally an equation analyzing something that doesn't exist. The full and complete duration lies somewhere in the future. Since it is in the future, it does not exist until we arrive at that point in the future, which of course means we'll be dead so we won't be able to analyze it (At least the human species won't. Maybe other intelligent life or evolved forms could analyze it). There also has been no other human existences and extinctions in the past to refer to. All that will happen is that you will come up with an incomplete analysis, like this one. The premise of this book is empty. Therefor I assume the book must be empty and meaningless.
Also, has anyone ever thought that there is a 50% chance that the first half is actually the second half and a 50% chance that the second half is actually the first half? That is probably the most fundamental problem with the calculation is that it takes two equal pie slices, but distinguishes that they are different. That's the artificial nature of this formula. The two slices are equal sized whether they are the first or second half. So there is actually no distinction between the halves, which means either half could represent either half... Example: Roll a 6 sided dice in a game where 1-3 is a hit and 4-6 is a miss. Say you roll a 2. Good that's a hit! But it's because it was assigned. Now lets make 4-6 a hit and 1-3 a miss. Now the rules say you missed. The choice that one half is the beginning and one half is the end is the human choice that makes the calculation flawed. It's equally as likely for the first half to be where we are as the second half, so it is equally as likely that the first half is the second half and vice versa.
Also, if there's a 50% chance we're in the first half and a 50% chance we're in the second half, what are the odds that we're exactly in the middle? It's not even considered. If the odds are 0%, that's like saying there is no middle, which there isn't. Why? Because the end hasn't happened yet. Once the end comes, there will be a center point. There actually is no center point yet. So there is no first half and second half. In other words this is all hypothetical. It's made up fantasy. Just another flaw.
I already know the book is useless. Here's how I came to that conclusion, below:
The prediction is right either way. The end of human existence could be 760 years from now, or 400 years from now, or 100,000 years from now, or 12,000,000 years from now and the prediction would still be correct. The information provided by the formula is nothing more than interesting, but useless information. There is a safety net on both sides of the statement, which renders it invulnerable to being incorrect. The fact that chance is involved, is the safety net. The prediction makes no distinction, and no choice. It is indecisive. Not concluded and incomplete. The only statement being made is that we may be half way or we may not be. Of course that's true. Since halves can only come in pairs, otherwise it's not a half. So it's set up to be either one thing or the other thing. It's a rigged statement made to forcefully be correct, but is useless and a waste of time that helps nobody and does not predict when the end of the human race will be. It's a clever way to cut a pie before knowing how big it is. Of course, you can cut a pie in half regardless of how big it is. If we cut the timeline (or pie) in 4 slices, then there is a 25% chance that we could be on either one of those slices. That means there is a 25% chance we are less than a quarter through, 25% chance that we are between a quarter and half, 25% chance that we are between half and three quarters, and 25% that we are between three quarters and the end. Since all of those are equally as likely to be true, it's like saying there's a 100% chance we are currently at any one point of the
timeline and it would fall on one of the quarters if we sectioned it in four. So if it's 50% likely that we are half way or less and 50% likely we are half way or more to human extinction, that means there are two slices that make up the whole pie. Since both slices are equally as likely to be true, they must be equally considered, which means there is an equal chance that we are on either slice of the pie. It's like saying there's a 100% chance we are currently at any one point of the timeline and it would fall on one of the halves if we sectioned it in two. So basically, the formula tells us that there is a point in the timeline of human existence that we are currently at, but we don't know when it will end and we don't know which piece of the timeline we would be on if we decided to make two equal sections with it. The information is literally useless. It may be a correct prediction no matter what because it is assuming human existence will meet an inevitable demise and that means it has an end, which means it also has a center point, which means we are currently on either side of the center point. But it doesn't predict which side. It's like saying the opposite of I don't know. I don't know would mean to stay out of the prediction and not make one, which means you can never be correct, because you didn't make a guess. Well this is literally an indecisive statement disguised as an answer. It's like saying I 50% believe we are less than half way and 50% believe we are more than half way. It's an attempt to be correct even though he doesn't know at all. That's literally no answer. It's a statement with no meaning behind it.
In conclusion, you can't analyze something that is incomplete. The duration of human existence hasn't been completed yet, so it is not even ready for analysis. And, since it is not complete, the duration of human existence doesn't exist yet. Furthermore, there is no use in calculating the possibilities as this event will only happen once, meaning if you don't predict the precise time it will happen, then any prediction of it is a waste, since in reality there is only one possible answer to when humans become extinct; the one and only time that it does. This is because things only happen once and time only moves forward. The equation would have more merit if parallel universes exist where there would be multiple endings to the human race. But even then, if there are an infinite amount of parallel universes, then every single infinitely small point in the timeline of human existence will happen all at once every moment over and over for infinity, which makes every point in the timeline subject to having an equal chance, which serves us no point. And if everything is infinite, everything must be equal, which makes me think there are no parallel universes. This is literally an equation analyzing something that doesn't exist. The full and complete duration lies somewhere in the future. Since it is in the future, it does not exist until we arrive at that point in the future, which of course means we'll be dead so we won't be able to analyze it (At least the human species won't. Maybe other intelligent life or evolved forms could analyze it). There also has been no other human existences and extinctions in the past to refer to. All that will happen is that you will come up with an incomplete analysis, like this one. The premise of this book is empty. Therefor I assume the book must be empty and meaningless.
Also, has anyone ever thought that there is a 50% chance that the first half is actually the second half and a 50% chance that the second half is actually the first half? That is probably the most fundamental problem with the calculation is that it takes two equal pie slices, but distinguishes that they are different. That's the artificial nature of this formula. The two slices are equal sized whether they are the first or second half. So there is actually no distinction between the halves, which means either half could represent either half... Example: Roll a 6 sided dice in a game where 1-3 is a hit and 4-6 is a miss. Say you roll a 2. Good that's a hit! But it's because it was assigned. Now lets make 4-6 a hit and 1-3 a miss. Now the rules say you missed. The choice that one half is the beginning and one half is the end is the human choice that makes the calculation flawed. It's equally as likely for the first half to be where we are as the second half, so it is equally as likely that the first half is the second half and vice versa.
Also, if there's a 50% chance we're in the first half and a 50% chance we're in the second half, what are the odds that we're exactly in the middle? It's not even considered. If the odds are 0%, that's like saying there is no middle, which there isn't. Why? Because the end hasn't happened yet. Once the end comes, there will be a center point. There actually is no center point yet. So there is no first half and second half. In other words this is all hypothetical. It's made up fantasy. Just another flaw.
November 15, 2019
The grumpus23 (23-word commentary)
Considering all of the ways we could destroy ourselves (or be destroyed), author examines the calculations of, and odds of our demise. Dry.
Considering all of the ways we could destroy ourselves (or be destroyed), author examines the calculations of, and odds of our demise. Dry.
September 16, 2024
If you read this book expecting a precise date of when and how the world is going to end, then you’re going to have a bad time. There is a lot of interesting information about statistics and probability in this one and goes well beyond what the title suggests. In the end I liked this even though it really didn’t seem what was advertised.
December 29, 2019
At first this book really irked me, it felt like a parlor trick. A statistical ploy gussied up in make-up (lipstick black of course). Getting older (me personally, and the country, world etc...) there is always a temptation to confound one's own demise with the extinction of everything everywhere.
And you grandpa, you accuse teenagers of being solipsistic?
Anyways, maybe it's being in a world that value Big Data so much, that the i in individuality seems about as real as the square root of negative one. I mean I know it technically exists, but not so easy to enjoy a walk in the sun, son.
And maybe it is amplified by reading "These Truths" and one of its tragic trajectories is how long polls have been around and misguided what they are meant to merely measure.
So predicting the Berlin Wall crashing, and the slivers of 39 in other realms....they just rub me the wrong way, even when they work. That's on me...
What's nice about the book, is Poundstone gets a little bored with it too, so seeks out far reaches of the galaxy (and the reddit universe) and we get to have a kind of college laundry room discussion of Sleeping Beauty and all life as a simulation, and a history of these sort of (in my humble opinion) unsolvable puzzles. It's like a Mass for Math, in a way. Maybe?
I agree with the reviewer who mentioned the worth of searching online for the Shooting Room and the Sailor's Child and other topics (they don't all start with S, but a preponderance of them do, and S is near the end of the alphabet, so hurry up the Internet may disappear while you are reading this).
Just re-checked the ending, fascinating (to be read aloud in your Spock voice). In the penultimate paragraph we get "The first rule of defying the odds is to never deny the odds." Man I love that quote and for me at least it fits with way to approach Statistics Gone Wild. But then Poundstone has to flip it back toward a more fatal fate. The final paragraph rounds up in the Doomsday Calculation a bit too much for my taste, talking about running out of time and then closing with "We are about to discover the truth of how special we are."
My take - don't bet on it.
And you grandpa, you accuse teenagers of being solipsistic?
Anyways, maybe it's being in a world that value Big Data so much, that the i in individuality seems about as real as the square root of negative one. I mean I know it technically exists, but not so easy to enjoy a walk in the sun, son.
And maybe it is amplified by reading "These Truths" and one of its tragic trajectories is how long polls have been around and misguided what they are meant to merely measure.
So predicting the Berlin Wall crashing, and the slivers of 39 in other realms....they just rub me the wrong way, even when they work. That's on me...
What's nice about the book, is Poundstone gets a little bored with it too, so seeks out far reaches of the galaxy (and the reddit universe) and we get to have a kind of college laundry room discussion of Sleeping Beauty and all life as a simulation, and a history of these sort of (in my humble opinion) unsolvable puzzles. It's like a Mass for Math, in a way. Maybe?
I agree with the reviewer who mentioned the worth of searching online for the Shooting Room and the Sailor's Child and other topics (they don't all start with S, but a preponderance of them do, and S is near the end of the alphabet, so hurry up the Internet may disappear while you are reading this).
Just re-checked the ending, fascinating (to be read aloud in your Spock voice). In the penultimate paragraph we get "The first rule of defying the odds is to never deny the odds." Man I love that quote and for me at least it fits with way to approach Statistics Gone Wild. But then Poundstone has to flip it back toward a more fatal fate. The final paragraph rounds up in the Doomsday Calculation a bit too much for my taste, talking about running out of time and then closing with "We are about to discover the truth of how special we are."
My take - don't bet on it.
June 12, 2019
Fairly interesting topic but pretty tough pop science to read. The first part of the book explains statistical methods used for "doomsday calculations." The author does a reasonable job, but readers with a mathematical background are going to be much more comfortable with it. The second part of the book goes into several applications of the approach covered in the first part (e.g., theoretical possibility of extraterrestrials), which for me got fairly convoluted fairly fast. This book is not for the faint of heart but interesting if you are comfortable with some of the technical issues.
February 20, 2020
Writing a "layman's technical" book is always difficult, one one hand, there's no way that one can equip the reader with all of the apparatus to understand the notion at hand. Which means, more often than not, mass-published books based on technical subject matters are often panned as insufficient or worst inaccurate. However, a very small subset of authors can pull it off, and my reading of three of William Poundstone's books, "Fortune's Formula", "Rock Breaks Scissors", and "Are you Smart Enough to Work at Google?", I came in very confident I'd get something out of his latest book, "The Doomsday Calculation"
Poundstone seems to have a knack of writing books around one or two "Simple" ideas, and he seems to very rarely select an idea that is beyond his depth of comprehension. Thus, as an author he is able present himself, to the reader, as an honest and genuine guide to whatever subject matter he's chosen for his writing. In this case, "The Doomsday" formula is a surprisingly simple extension of a basic idea in probability, namely confidence interval from frequentist statistics.
In plain English, the Doomsday Formula states that how long "something" is likely to persist into the future, is related to how long something has already existed up to now. So if one "self-samples" themselves on their age, it is "likely" the point in time, one has queried a person in their life was not especially unique for some reason. That is, all-things being equal, one has unlikely queried at a point close to to death of a person, or especially close to their birth. Thus they are likely to be somewhere "In the middle", and this "in the middle" time-interval is characterized by a (usually 95th percentile) confidence interval, where the interval of measurement is time, as opposed to space or quantity, which is how confident intervals are often drawn in high-school or early probability or statistics course problem sets/homework. Student of statistics will find this concept strangely familiar to another notion called the "non-informative prior" from Bayesian statistics, or perhaps to a simpler notion of just assuming something has a "uniform" random chance of occurring if one does not know better (say drawing a red ball from a jar, where the jar is opaque to the observers). Wherever the author has encountered it, Poundstone labels this concept "The Coperninum Principle" based on the great astronomers stunning insight that our solar system was not central in any way, but was merely one of many other similar solar systems across a potential infinitude of solar systems in a vast galaxy.
This insight, to take the standard analysis and apply it time was pioneered J. Richard Gott III, an astrophysicist, and was penned "The Delta T method" in a short research paper he wrote on what the implications of the "Copernican Principle" to the likely length of future human civilization. His original paper is freely available online and is simple enough to comprehend with just a freshmen-level grasp of calculus and elementary probability. Yet, from such a simple concept, Gott was able to extract a wide range of implications on the life or expected life of something, from monuments (the Berlin Wall), human life, civilization life, to the possibly the life of a company.
This later implication is an extension of the original Gott thesis, referred to as Lindy's Law, and is well known by many business analyst and complexity theorist. The first 1/3 of the book is dedicated to the explanation and exploration of Gott and Lindy's notions. The last 2/3 are an application of this notion to various domain areas that could be of interests to the current reader. These notions include insights the Gott-Lindy thesis may have for "The Simulation Hypothesis" (do we exist in a simulation?), the Fermi-question (where is life in the universe?) as well as the likelihood that the standard interpretation of the Quantum Mechanical phenomena coherence/de-coherence is wrong vis-a-vis the "Everest" interpretation of "Many worlds"
It's clear after reading it once, that I'd profit from reading it twice (at least in selective focused manner). The last 2/3rds of the book were generally less interesting to me relative to the first part, as the phenomena is extremely interesting, and the author could have benefited by providing a little more technical exploration of it and it's progeny thesis. That being said, the book provides enough conceptual grasp to continue towards reading the material from the primary source online, so perhaps his brevity is merited given the uncharacteristically reasonable readability of Gott's papers.
Overall, the book is enjoyable, for those who have read a lot of recent tech books, the stuff on AI and Bostrom's work on the "control-issue" for AGI and Super-AI will know that his own book better serves these notions. Yet, Poundstone has brought to light a little known, but potentially interesting phenomena, and has written on it well, which is all one can ask for of mass-published "technical" books. Recommended.
Poundstone seems to have a knack of writing books around one or two "Simple" ideas, and he seems to very rarely select an idea that is beyond his depth of comprehension. Thus, as an author he is able present himself, to the reader, as an honest and genuine guide to whatever subject matter he's chosen for his writing. In this case, "The Doomsday" formula is a surprisingly simple extension of a basic idea in probability, namely confidence interval from frequentist statistics.
In plain English, the Doomsday Formula states that how long "something" is likely to persist into the future, is related to how long something has already existed up to now. So if one "self-samples" themselves on their age, it is "likely" the point in time, one has queried a person in their life was not especially unique for some reason. That is, all-things being equal, one has unlikely queried at a point close to to death of a person, or especially close to their birth. Thus they are likely to be somewhere "In the middle", and this "in the middle" time-interval is characterized by a (usually 95th percentile) confidence interval, where the interval of measurement is time, as opposed to space or quantity, which is how confident intervals are often drawn in high-school or early probability or statistics course problem sets/homework. Student of statistics will find this concept strangely familiar to another notion called the "non-informative prior" from Bayesian statistics, or perhaps to a simpler notion of just assuming something has a "uniform" random chance of occurring if one does not know better (say drawing a red ball from a jar, where the jar is opaque to the observers). Wherever the author has encountered it, Poundstone labels this concept "The Coperninum Principle" based on the great astronomers stunning insight that our solar system was not central in any way, but was merely one of many other similar solar systems across a potential infinitude of solar systems in a vast galaxy.
This insight, to take the standard analysis and apply it time was pioneered J. Richard Gott III, an astrophysicist, and was penned "The Delta T method" in a short research paper he wrote on what the implications of the "Copernican Principle" to the likely length of future human civilization. His original paper is freely available online and is simple enough to comprehend with just a freshmen-level grasp of calculus and elementary probability. Yet, from such a simple concept, Gott was able to extract a wide range of implications on the life or expected life of something, from monuments (the Berlin Wall), human life, civilization life, to the possibly the life of a company.
This later implication is an extension of the original Gott thesis, referred to as Lindy's Law, and is well known by many business analyst and complexity theorist. The first 1/3 of the book is dedicated to the explanation and exploration of Gott and Lindy's notions. The last 2/3 are an application of this notion to various domain areas that could be of interests to the current reader. These notions include insights the Gott-Lindy thesis may have for "The Simulation Hypothesis" (do we exist in a simulation?), the Fermi-question (where is life in the universe?) as well as the likelihood that the standard interpretation of the Quantum Mechanical phenomena coherence/de-coherence is wrong vis-a-vis the "Everest" interpretation of "Many worlds"
It's clear after reading it once, that I'd profit from reading it twice (at least in selective focused manner). The last 2/3rds of the book were generally less interesting to me relative to the first part, as the phenomena is extremely interesting, and the author could have benefited by providing a little more technical exploration of it and it's progeny thesis. That being said, the book provides enough conceptual grasp to continue towards reading the material from the primary source online, so perhaps his brevity is merited given the uncharacteristically reasonable readability of Gott's papers.
Overall, the book is enjoyable, for those who have read a lot of recent tech books, the stuff on AI and Bostrom's work on the "control-issue" for AGI and Super-AI will know that his own book better serves these notions. Yet, Poundstone has brought to light a little known, but potentially interesting phenomena, and has written on it well, which is all one can ask for of mass-published "technical" books. Recommended.
April 25, 2023
The Doomsday Calculation is about Bayes' Theorem. More specifically, the author describes scenarios and situations that are difficult to assess. How much longer do we have as a species?
William Poundstone writes about using Bayes’ Theorem along with Copernican theory. What does that mean? When Copernicus published his idea of a heliocentric universe, it shifted human perception. We are not special. The Earth is not a vaunted location.
J. Richard Gott III took this idea and ran with it. He used the theory to estimate the lifespan of the Berlin Wall. He predicted that it would fall in another 20 years or so, and he was within tolerance.
The book is fascinating. Some napkin calculations made me laugh, but beyond that, the book was great. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
William Poundstone writes about using Bayes’ Theorem along with Copernican theory. What does that mean? When Copernicus published his idea of a heliocentric universe, it shifted human perception. We are not special. The Earth is not a vaunted location.
J. Richard Gott III took this idea and ran with it. He used the theory to estimate the lifespan of the Berlin Wall. He predicted that it would fall in another 20 years or so, and he was within tolerance.
The book is fascinating. Some napkin calculations made me laugh, but beyond that, the book was great. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
April 4, 2021
The author presents an estimation technique that is used in a virtually absolute lack of data.
As a mental gimmick it is quite amusing and engaging.
But then this funny technique is used to predict an end of humanity the opinions of arguing people turn quite serious.
The author raises a question of how much people understand probability. It turns out in some cases the understanding is lacking. The author presents a bunch of problems on probability, which when taken from different perspectives provide paradoxically differing results that are hard to reconcile.
Finally the doomsday problem is looked at from a perspective of physicists. A series of mind experiments is raised that leads to interesting consequences.
Informative and fun to read.
As a mental gimmick it is quite amusing and engaging.
But then this funny technique is used to predict an end of humanity the opinions of arguing people turn quite serious.
The author raises a question of how much people understand probability. It turns out in some cases the understanding is lacking. The author presents a bunch of problems on probability, which when taken from different perspectives provide paradoxically differing results that are hard to reconcile.
Finally the doomsday problem is looked at from a perspective of physicists. A series of mind experiments is raised that leads to interesting consequences.
Informative and fun to read.
October 15, 2023
A bit too much Elon Musk for my taste. Already slightly outdated regarding UAP research, Musk's position on AI (calling it dangerous and retreating from the development of ChatGPT but trying to develop an even more powerful one), and, tragically, on the threat of nuclear self destruction.
August 17, 2024
This broad look at the science of probabilities seemed a good option as a sleepy-time audiobook and it is indeed full of head-melting thought experiments and factoids of varying interest to a non-mathematician. But it was also quite interesting. I learned some stuff about philosophy and some equations, oh and that the default outcome of a society developing AI is catastrophe, which is cheery.
But when it came to paperclips of doom, quantum probabilities, infinite numbers of 'you' in multiple worlds and bubble universes I did tend to fall asleep as a means of self-protection.
But when it came to paperclips of doom, quantum probabilities, infinite numbers of 'you' in multiple worlds and bubble universes I did tend to fall asleep as a means of self-protection.
July 9, 2025
I really enjoyed some of the ideas, but many of them went over my head. The metaphysics section in the second half was more of a vibe-read for me. Felt like hanging out with your stoner friend that could have a 4.0 if they ever went to class
June 30, 2019
Maybe I'm not into the doomsday stuff, so some sections are too dry for me. Still Gott's method, theories about ET, AI and human future, etc., were well written, and at least got you to think. I'd give it 3.5.
March 12, 2023
Easily digestible book which blew my mind a little bit a couple times and taught me some new concepts!
Elon Musk pops up a few times in the 2nd part of the book though and it is a bit weird seeing him treated like someone with a brain seeing how he's mostly well known these days for ruining Twitter and his explodey cars that like hitting things.
Elon Musk pops up a few times in the 2nd part of the book though and it is a bit weird seeing him treated like someone with a brain seeing how he's mostly well known these days for ruining Twitter and his explodey cars that like hitting things.
August 26, 2023
What I expected to find in this book was Bayes formula with various apocalyptic scenarios plugged into it. It is much more interesting than that.
The first half of the book reviews statistical predictions about how much longer we may exist, without the complex formulas you often find in statistics books. There are also many thought experiments.
The second half uses ideas from theoretical physics to look at how we might meet our doom without picking a specific end. The most obvious current threats, such as a runaway greenhouse effect or hostile AI, get some attention. The less obvious threat of the Fermi Paradox and a possible great filter get much more attention. If life is common in the universe there should be many intelligent species including technologically advanced galactic civilizations. As Fermi asked, “Where is everybody?” Is there a step in the advanced technology needed to reach the stars that inevitably causes extinction?
I found this book interesting all the way through. Highly recommend it.
The first half of the book reviews statistical predictions about how much longer we may exist, without the complex formulas you often find in statistics books. There are also many thought experiments.
The second half uses ideas from theoretical physics to look at how we might meet our doom without picking a specific end. The most obvious current threats, such as a runaway greenhouse effect or hostile AI, get some attention. The less obvious threat of the Fermi Paradox and a possible great filter get much more attention. If life is common in the universe there should be many intelligent species including technologically advanced galactic civilizations. As Fermi asked, “Where is everybody?” Is there a step in the advanced technology needed to reach the stars that inevitably causes extinction?
I found this book interesting all the way through. Highly recommend it.
August 3, 2021
An extremely fascinating and thought-provoking book! I wrote a summary/review on my blog. Strongly recommended for those who enjoyed Superintelligence!
September 29, 2019
I found this well-researched and thorough book interesting more for the calculation than for doomsday. It does cover the usual range of apocalyptic possibilities—from our own hand, to something else’s hand, to a hand we ourselves created—with emphasis on artificial intelligence assuming control and preemptively, probably wisely, wiping out its creators. But then the smartest people in the technology industry weigh in, and their arguments range from insistence that the robot apocalypse is the most immediate threat to the human race, to laughter at such sci-fi fantasies. Likewise, the calculations for when this event will take place, based on sometimes abstruse math, date our extinction to happen—hold your breath—“any time now to never,” in the author’s words. So, spoiler: this book isn’t going to tell you when you should stop salting away money for your kids’ education or your own retirement.
It will, however, give you a terrific tour of the perils of prediction. Humans evolved to snap-calculate probability because being prepared for the most likely threat to your survival ups your chances of passing on your genes to the next generation. We also evolved to have unrealistic confidence in our predictions so that we wholeheartedly implement our survival plan. Self-delusion is a human asset, but that’s not what this book is about. Instead it explores the ways we more systematically try to predict the future—probability calculation.
The “doomsday calculation” of the title consists of several variations on methods of calculating humanity’s demise—and here’s the key point—using math relating only to our timeline so far. It doesn’t address at all what may cause our extinction. The math has nothing to do with temperature, sea levels, solar changes, gun ownership, nuclear proliferation, contagion rates, or digital network saturation. Oddly, this sort of math has a surprising accuracy when applied to survival probabilities of individual humans, companies, and nations. Probably more to the point, you can fairly quickly amass all the numbers needed to make the calculations, whereas putting together all the statistics for all possible factors in human extinction and then doing the math on them would probably take longer than your most optimistic estimation of human survival.
This leads to an examination of probability calculations and which methods are better suited for the task, often based on how much information you have to work with. A lot of probability math was developed for or by gamblers. It doesn’t pretend to tell you what’s going to happen in the future, it only tells you what your best bet is or if you should bet at all. For the human race, there would seem to be only one good bet: that we will survive if we all do our best to make that happen. But of course there are other bets too, such as that working against human survival will enrich me until I die, which will happen before the human extinction I helped bring about.
It will, however, give you a terrific tour of the perils of prediction. Humans evolved to snap-calculate probability because being prepared for the most likely threat to your survival ups your chances of passing on your genes to the next generation. We also evolved to have unrealistic confidence in our predictions so that we wholeheartedly implement our survival plan. Self-delusion is a human asset, but that’s not what this book is about. Instead it explores the ways we more systematically try to predict the future—probability calculation.
The “doomsday calculation” of the title consists of several variations on methods of calculating humanity’s demise—and here’s the key point—using math relating only to our timeline so far. It doesn’t address at all what may cause our extinction. The math has nothing to do with temperature, sea levels, solar changes, gun ownership, nuclear proliferation, contagion rates, or digital network saturation. Oddly, this sort of math has a surprising accuracy when applied to survival probabilities of individual humans, companies, and nations. Probably more to the point, you can fairly quickly amass all the numbers needed to make the calculations, whereas putting together all the statistics for all possible factors in human extinction and then doing the math on them would probably take longer than your most optimistic estimation of human survival.
This leads to an examination of probability calculations and which methods are better suited for the task, often based on how much information you have to work with. A lot of probability math was developed for or by gamblers. It doesn’t pretend to tell you what’s going to happen in the future, it only tells you what your best bet is or if you should bet at all. For the human race, there would seem to be only one good bet: that we will survive if we all do our best to make that happen. But of course there are other bets too, such as that working against human survival will enrich me until I die, which will happen before the human extinction I helped bring about.
November 20, 2022
This is an important read, but because it is laundered longtermism. Consider the summary for the book "The Doomsday Calculation tells how Silicon Valley's profitable formula became a controversial pivot of contemporary thought. Drawing on interviews with thought leaders around the globe, it's the story of a group of intellectual mavericks who are challenging what we thought we knew about our place in the universe. The Doomsday Calculation is compelling reading for anyone interested in our culture and its future."
The book covers the "Bayesian" approach to calculate the probability of events that haven't occurred yet - interesting and the darlings of hedge fund managers and Silicon Valley. From there it leans into the deep philosophy of longtermism, i.e. "odds on the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence; on whether we live in a Matrix-like counterfeit of reality; on the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory being correct; and on the biggest question of all: how long will humanity survive?"
It doesn't mention the radioactivity of the theory - as said by a Salon article, "fueled by capitalism and eugenics." As the Salon article concludes, the "quasi-religious worldview of longtermism, according to which the West is the pinnacle of human development, the only solution to our problems is more technology and morality is reduced to a computational exercise ("Shut-up and multiply"!). One must wonder, when [longtermists ask] "What do we owe the future?" whose future [are they] talking about. The future of indigenous peoples? The future of the world's nearly 2 billion Muslims? The future of the Global South? The future of the environment, ecosystems and our fellow living creatures here on Earth?...If the future that longtermists envision reflects the community this movement has cultivated over the past two decades, who would actually want to live in it?"
Poundstone's look at this theory, the Copernican-type of the formula used to encounter temporal phenomena, and how it has wormed its way into hedge fund calculations and BigTech algorithms, is highly instructive. The cannonball into the Star Trek multiverse-like petting zoo of longtermist futures is also highly instructive within this context. For anyone who has read the critique of longtermism, The Doomsday Calculation is a then a solid gateway into the dogma of longtermism, or as Aeon characterized it, "the world's most dangerous secular credo."
The book covers the "Bayesian" approach to calculate the probability of events that haven't occurred yet - interesting and the darlings of hedge fund managers and Silicon Valley. From there it leans into the deep philosophy of longtermism, i.e. "odds on the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence; on whether we live in a Matrix-like counterfeit of reality; on the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory being correct; and on the biggest question of all: how long will humanity survive?"
It doesn't mention the radioactivity of the theory - as said by a Salon article, "fueled by capitalism and eugenics." As the Salon article concludes, the "quasi-religious worldview of longtermism, according to which the West is the pinnacle of human development, the only solution to our problems is more technology and morality is reduced to a computational exercise ("Shut-up and multiply"!). One must wonder, when [longtermists ask] "What do we owe the future?" whose future [are they] talking about. The future of indigenous peoples? The future of the world's nearly 2 billion Muslims? The future of the Global South? The future of the environment, ecosystems and our fellow living creatures here on Earth?...If the future that longtermists envision reflects the community this movement has cultivated over the past two decades, who would actually want to live in it?"
Poundstone's look at this theory, the Copernican-type of the formula used to encounter temporal phenomena, and how it has wormed its way into hedge fund calculations and BigTech algorithms, is highly instructive. The cannonball into the Star Trek multiverse-like petting zoo of longtermist futures is also highly instructive within this context. For anyone who has read the critique of longtermism, The Doomsday Calculation is a then a solid gateway into the dogma of longtermism, or as Aeon characterized it, "the world's most dangerous secular credo."
January 20, 2020
Poundstone connects the Doomsday Argument with several other similar questions:
(i) The Doomsday Argument (Can we predict the probability of human extinction?)
(ii) Fermi's paradox (Why haven't we seen any aliens?)
(iii) The Simulation argument (Are we living in a simulation?)
(iv) AI existential risk (Will AI wipe out humanity?)
(v) The Anthropic Principle (Are the laws of physics inevitable?)
What connects all of these is the idea of "self-sampling": We are only able to ask these questions because we exist, but how improbable is our existence? Why are here? How special are we? It's very existential!
I have the impression that there has been a surge of interest in these kind of questions (particularly AI risk, Fermi's paradox and the simulation argument) in the last few years, especially among online tech nerds.
I am not sure why that is.
Maybe it's just the result of living in a more technological age and the constant touting of a "technological singularity" which has focused more people's attention on these topics.
At any rate, these arguments are definitely interesting from a philosophical perspective (and in the case of AI risk there is a practical aspect). It will be interesting to see how they evolve and whether this "self-sampling" kind of idea becomes a more accepted explanation in different areas.
(i) The Doomsday Argument (Can we predict the probability of human extinction?)
(ii) Fermi's paradox (Why haven't we seen any aliens?)
(iii) The Simulation argument (Are we living in a simulation?)
(iv) AI existential risk (Will AI wipe out humanity?)
(v) The Anthropic Principle (Are the laws of physics inevitable?)
What connects all of these is the idea of "self-sampling": We are only able to ask these questions because we exist, but how improbable is our existence? Why are here? How special are we? It's very existential!
I have the impression that there has been a surge of interest in these kind of questions (particularly AI risk, Fermi's paradox and the simulation argument) in the last few years, especially among online tech nerds.
I am not sure why that is.
Maybe it's just the result of living in a more technological age and the constant touting of a "technological singularity" which has focused more people's attention on these topics.
At any rate, these arguments are definitely interesting from a philosophical perspective (and in the case of AI risk there is a practical aspect). It will be interesting to see how they evolve and whether this "self-sampling" kind of idea becomes a more accepted explanation in different areas.
June 1, 2019
There have been people saying the end is coming since, well, for a very long time. In this book we find out how soon that end might be. Well...there isn’t just “one” doomsday calculation. There are several approaches, with different assumptions, and of course differing dates of doom. The ways of our demise are seemingly endless.
The first half of the book is the more difficult part, easier if you’re math or statistical inclined. Once you grasp all the concepts and thought experiments you move on to contemplating some interesting thoughts, questions that seem to plague us. Poundstone uses those probability calculations for why we don’t hear from alien life, what about artificial intelligence taking over; oh, and are we actually in a simulated reality? The singularity is near.
This is a good book for people who like to ponder the philosophical questions of life, the universe, and everything. Turns out the answer isn’t 42 but 1/137.
Thankfully there are several think tanks like the Future of Humanity Institute, and the Future of Life Institute, with the goal to prevent the end of the world as we know it. I feel fine.
Thanks to Little, Brown Spark and NetGalley for an uncorrected electronic advance review copy of this book.
The first half of the book is the more difficult part, easier if you’re math or statistical inclined. Once you grasp all the concepts and thought experiments you move on to contemplating some interesting thoughts, questions that seem to plague us. Poundstone uses those probability calculations for why we don’t hear from alien life, what about artificial intelligence taking over; oh, and are we actually in a simulated reality? The singularity is near.
This is a good book for people who like to ponder the philosophical questions of life, the universe, and everything. Turns out the answer isn’t 42 but 1/137.
Thankfully there are several think tanks like the Future of Humanity Institute, and the Future of Life Institute, with the goal to prevent the end of the world as we know it. I feel fine.
Thanks to Little, Brown Spark and NetGalley for an uncorrected electronic advance review copy of this book.
May 25, 2021
A well written and at times humorous look at the physics of the universe and ultimate changes that will affect the future of our species. The book begins with an explanation of several statistical methods relating to predicting a range of time when certain phenomena will occur; I found this portion very interesting. From there the author delves into what I would call mind games: the fine structure constant, quantum immortality, quantum suicide machine, the fermi paradox. Pretty esoteric stuff. He deals with some unnatural phenomena that may end the human race: gene editing, where a highly contagious and dangerous strain escapes the lab, and artificial intelligence where the bots take over, much like HAL in "2001 a Space Odyssey. The book is not footnoted but contains notes referring to passages by page number, plus an extensive bibliography.
September 22, 2021
This book made statistics and probabilities interesting, which is no small feat. Math is usually a language useful only for communication between eccentrics, like Klingon out of the mouths of Trekkers. Poundstone crafted a fine narrative around a standout moment in the history of Probabilities so the rest of us can sit back and enjoy with popcorn. This story has a protagonist, Gott, a titillating conflict around the application of the Doomsday Calculation to our lives, and how other mathematicians throw statistical mud at Gott. This story is also contemporary, with definitive positions on AI staked out by giants like Elon Musk, Nick Bostrom, and Max Tegmark. Is there really an equation, or statistical approximation, to the End-of-Days, and what should be our response if we accept the assertion? Poundstone gave gravity to this topic, and I will dwell on it for a long time.
March 22, 2020
Reading this while COV-19 wraps the world in its own black swan event is strange and useful.
The book provides a layman's explanation on using probability mathematics to explore various philosophical questions including probability of human extinction, Fermi's paradox (or why haven't we seen any aliens?), The Simulation argument (Are we living in a virtual simulation?), analysis of the AI existential risk, and The Anthropic Principle (Are the laws of physics inevitable?).
Bit dry but packed with interesting complex thinking. Recommended. I probably need to read this again to the get a sense of really how everything fits together....
The book provides a layman's explanation on using probability mathematics to explore various philosophical questions including probability of human extinction, Fermi's paradox (or why haven't we seen any aliens?), The Simulation argument (Are we living in a virtual simulation?), analysis of the AI existential risk, and The Anthropic Principle (Are the laws of physics inevitable?).
Bit dry but packed with interesting complex thinking. Recommended. I probably need to read this again to the get a sense of really how everything fits together....
October 22, 2019
I always learn something interesting and thought-provoking from Poundstone's books. I did enjoy reading this, but I thought the first half was stronger than the second, which I thought tried to cover too much, too superficially, without enough nuanced linkage to the concepts presented in the first part.
June 27, 2020
American astrophysicist j. Richard Gott III developed an equation that predicts the future, specifically how long the human race will survive. Is this valid or not? This book looks at the arguments on both sides in great detail. Makes you think about uncomfortable ideas. By the way, his equation correctly predicted how long the Charles-Diana marriage would last.
October 6, 2020
Glad to have read, here's the but, its way out there, my grandmother lived to 103, her mother my great grandmother 102, which takes my personal family heirlooms back to the 1800's , if it's not real, I've been living it for 50 years.
Elon can keep his billions, I'm very happy here in "my" reality with the books I read; I have to say, I have enjoyed multiple books from Musk's reading list.
Elon can keep his billions, I'm very happy here in "my" reality with the books I read; I have to say, I have enjoyed multiple books from Musk's reading list.
January 1, 2021
Did someone almost trick me into reading a statistics book? Don't worry, I didn't fall for it. I'd love to know the mathematical probability of humankind's demise, but I would prefer the cliff notes version, which this is not.
Poundstone is a great story teller and makes this as interesting as possible considering the topic. Rock Breaks Scissors is more promising, so I'm going to dump Doomsday for now.
Poundstone is a great story teller and makes this as interesting as possible considering the topic. Rock Breaks Scissors is more promising, so I'm going to dump Doomsday for now.
June 24, 2022
This was a Father’s Day gift. I am a mathematician and knew about Bayes Theorem. The book is written for a popular audience, so goes lightly on the math ( but he does write down the identity). However he doesn’t indicate much about how it is used. I agree with another review I read that said ‘I understand he can’t show the math, but perhaps an appendix’.
April 16, 2024
Overall a solid book that looks at not the possibilities of the end of the world but the probabilities. Uses an equation that can really give you the likelihood of anything. I preferred the second half of the book much more as it brought up the topic of doomsday surrounding artificial intelligence. Not a bad read but most likely wouldn’t read again.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews