Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6254750" data-attributes="member: 6677017">Instinct versus math rather. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> So every time a new planet is colonized we have to adjust the results? That's a problem right there. The formula has no way of knowing how many planets we will colonize!What I'm seeing however, is just some math that seems to fail to take into account meaningful variables. Assuming the math works (and I'm not qualified to judge that with any confidence) all it can say is that if nothing significant intervenes, and if we known the maximum population, then we can estimate with a high degree of confidence how long it will take us to get there.If we were to learn, for instance, that a bunch of asteroids were going to enter the solar system in 100 years, each of which had a certain chance of hitting earth, that would throw a wrench into the whole thing.Now, it might actually be interesting for the purposes it was brought up for on the thread though. Determine how many habitable worlds humanity is likely to be able to reach in the universe--and therefore estimate the maximum human population of the universe, and see what that gives you with this formula. As a thought experiment in design, sure, it's fun.</blockquote>