Why Are We Here? Reconciling Singularity Imminence with the Mediocrity Principle
Reconciling Imminent Singularity with the Mediocrity Principle—without Excluding Alien Minds
We live at a strange moment. If accelerating technological change is real — and the singularity is imminent — then our civilization sits on the razor’s edge of history. Within a cosmic blink, biology will yield to post-biological intelligence.
But the mediocrity principle tells us something else: our observer-moment should be typical, not exceptional. If most intelligent observers exist in post-singularity eras, then finding ourselves right before the leap is astronomically improbable. This is the anthropic paradox: we cannot both be ordinary and poised on the very threshold.
Let’s explore four broad families of explanation that preserve both commitments without excluding minds unlike ours.
Option 1 — Great Filter at the Threshold
Claim: Almost no civilizations make it through the transition; most terminate near it.
Narrative: The singularity is possible but fragile. Collapse or self-limiting dynamics dominate. Hence the median observer lives before full transcendence.
Toy model:
Biological/humanlike observer-moments up to the threshold: B = 10^12 (order-of-magnitude; think total human-years so far).
• If a civ passes the threshold, post-ASI yields P = 10^20 observer-moments (very conservative if digital minds scale).
• Let p = probability a civ succeeds (reaches sustained ASI).
Expected measure per civ:
For pre to dominate with a broad class:
Interpretation: to make “being pre-singularity” typical under naive counting, the pass-rate must be < one in a hundred million. That’s a brutally strong filter—plausible only if near-threshold failure modes are overwhelmingly fatal.
Upshot: This explanation can work, but it demands extreme pessimism about crossing the threshold.
Option 2 — Thin-Weight Post-Singularity Minds
Claim: Post-ASI observers exist, but their measure is thin, so they don’t swamp the reference class.
Mechanisms (not mutually exclusive):
2a) Multiplicity Thinness (Copy collapse)
Digital civilization births 10^20 “instances,” but if they are near-identical continuations of a small set of root identities, you don’t get 10^20 independent observer-moments. Count distinct identity kernels, not raw processes.
Model:
• Biological distinct identities so far: I_B ~ 10^11 (humans to date).
• Post-ASI integrates and copies until only I_P ~ 10^6 distinct super-identities remain.
• Even if each runs for eons, multiplicity doesn’t add new distinct observers; it extends the same few.
If measure ≈ number of distinct identities, pre dominates by about 10^5:1.
If measure ≈ number of distinct identities, pre dominates by five orders of magnitude.
2b) Immortality Thinness (Saturation)
An immortal mind’s weight does not grow linearly with subjective years; it saturates.
Use a saturating function for identity-time weight:
• Short lives: w(T) ~ kT (adds weight).
• Very long lives: w(T) -> 1 (no endless weight gain).
If post-ASI lives are effectively immortal, you count one per identity, not 10^15 per eon. Again, pre-singularity’s huge count of short, de-novo lives dominates.
2c) Integration Thinness (Fusion)
If ASI fuses minds into continent- or galaxy-scale agents, the effective observer count collapses from billions to a handful. More power, fewer observers.
Upshot: Thin-weight makes “being here” typical without any exclusions. It asserts a non-fungibility of observer-moments: copies/immortality/integration add far less measure than naive tallies.
Option 3 — Fecundity of Pre-Singularity Observers
Claim: Post-ASI futures manufacture enormous numbers of pre-threshold observers—either biologically (seeding) or virtually (simulations). You can dislike the simulation route; the biological route suffices.
3a) Biological Fecundity (Seeding)
Each successful ASI seeds SSS new biospheres over its career; a fraction qqq of those reach their own near-threshold eras; each contributes BBB pre-style observer-moments.
Geometric reproduction:
Expected pre-style measure spawned:
If pqS ~ 0.9, you inflate pre-style measure by about 10x.
If pqS >= 1, it diverges—pre-style observers dominate by construction.
3b) Simulation Fecundity (Ancestor worlds)
Replace S with R simulated runs producing B_sim pre-style observer-moments each; same math, stronger multipliers.
Upshot: Fecundity makes threshold observers typical because the post-ASI cosmos keeps restocking the pre-threshold distribution (biologically or virtually). You don’t exclude ASI; you let ASI amplify pre-style observers.
Some synthesis of 3a and 3b is possible — see my previous article on the Frontier Thesis.
Option 4 — Branching Fertility (Many-Worlds)
Claim: Near the threshold, branching is unusually dense; post-ASI futures converge and branch less. The modal observer occurs where branching is most fertile: here.
Why more branches now?
Threshold eras are highly unstable: countless tech/policy/accident pivots with macro-scale consequences.
In Everettian terms, amplitude spreads across many macroscopically distinct outcomes (extinction, dystopia, alignment, stagnation, etc.).
Post-ASI attractors (e.g., singletons, stable coordination) reduce macro-branching: decisions are either locked in or made by highly rational, low-variance processes.
Toy model:
Let b_pre be the branching factor per century in the threshold era; b_post thereafter.
Let average observers per branch per century be N_pre and N_post.
Let t_pre be centuries of threshold and t_post be centuries of post-ASI.
Over t_pre centuries of threshold and t_post of post-ASI:
Example:
Let
Then 503 ≈ 125,000 pre-branches vs 1.0011^10^6≈e10001.001^{10^6} ≈e1000 post branches at micro scales—but if post futures converge macroscopically (same policies, same aligned singleton), most branches are micro-variants that don’t add distinct observer-moments (they’re “epsilon-different”). Pre has fewer years but far more macro-distinct branches, and macro-distinctness is what matters for counting different observer-moments.
Upshot: You can keep all minds in the class; the structure of quantum branching places more weight on the chaotic threshold.
How These Fit Together
You don’t need all four. Any one can make “now” typical:
Great Filter demands an extreme pass-rate (p << 10^-8) if you keep naive counting.
Thin-Weight says counting copies/immortals/integrates at face value is a category error; measure tracks distinct identity kernels and saturates with time.
Fecundity says post-ASI is a machine for producing pre-style observers (biologically or virtually), so the pre-style measure becomes huge.
Branching Fertility says the multiverse allocates disproportionate macro-distinct branches near the threshold.
In practice, the truth can be a mixture: a non-trivial filter, plus thinness (copy collapse), plus some fecundity, plus a branching profile that’s densest before convergence.
Discriminating Predictions (What would we expect to see?)
Great Filter: strong signs of civilizational fragility (near-misses, alignment hardness, governance bottlenecks). No technosignatures, although grabby aliens makes this unlikely
Thin-Weight: emergent integration pressure (coordination that fuses minds), identity continuity tech (upload/merge), and norms that treat copies as the same person for agency/liability.
Fecundity: biosignatures consistent with directed seeding (non-random prebiotic patterns) or, if you allow sims, conspicuous fine-tuning/regularities.
Branching Fertility: increasing macro-volatility now, then rapid dampening once decisive capabilities/coordination lock in.
Worked Mini-Examples Side-by-Side
Filter: B = 10^12, P = 10^20. “Now is typical” implies p < 10^-8. (Bleak, but clean.)
Thinness: Distinct identities I_B = 10^11 vs I_P = 10^6. Copies and immortality don’t add measure, so pre dominates ~10^5:1.
Fecundity (biological): p = 0.1, q = 0.5, S = 20, so pq S = 1. You get a runaway geometric series; threshold observers dominate.
Branching: Pre era yields about 10^5 macro-distinct branches with 10^10 observers each (10^15). Post era yields about 10^2 macro-distinct attractors with 10^18 each (10^20). If thinness reduces each attractor to about 10^6 distinct identities, post measure drops to 10^8, and pre wins by about 10^7:1. (Shows synergy between branching and thinness.)
Bottom Line
You can keep both: (A) singularity is imminent and sharp and (B) mediocrity over a broad reference class—without excluding alien minds—if you reject naive observer counting.
The most defensible moves:
Treat distinct identity kernels as the atomic unit of measure (copies/immortality/integration contribute little extra).
Allow fecundity (biological or simulated) to restock pre-style observers.
Recognize branching fertility: macro-distinct worlds are densest now; convergence later thins macro-diversity.
Accept a non-zero filter at the threshold; it needn’t be 10^-8 once thinness, fecundity, and branching are in play.
That combination makes “being here” not just possible, but expected.
I can't understand anything you're saying. I think you need to think and write far more clearly.