21 May 04
The Strong law of large numbers says that, if you have N independent, identically distributed random variables, and you take the mean X of them (ie a sample mean):
X -> x as N -> ?, where x is the theoretical mean of the distribution. For example if you toss a fair coin repeatedly and keep count of the proportion of heads, it will tend to 1/2 as you make more and more tosses.
Another way of expressing this is 'your luck will always balance out in the long run'. A corollary is that if something has a nonzero chance of happening, it will happen over and over again in the long run.
Do you believe in karma? If so, what does the word mean to you? Is it in any way similar to the mathematical theorem stated above?
Do you believe in life moving cyclically? If so, what aspects? Does this relate to the corollary?
21 May 04
Originally posted by AcolyteInteresting.
The Strong law of large numbers says that, if you have N independent, identically distributed random variables, and you take the mean X of them (ie a sample mean):
X -> x as N -> ?, where x is the theoretical mean of the distribution. For example if you toss a fair coin repeatedly and keep count of the proportion of heads, it will tend to 1/2 as you make ...[text shortened]... you believe in life moving cyclically? If so, what aspects? Does this relate to the corollary?
But what about the idea that we "make" decisions? We don't usually just let things "happen" to us. At least I don't.
Does this not remove us from the "coin toss" realm into the "day planner" realm of existence?
Once on the path of life, you might as well walk. If you stop you will either forget where you're going or get trampled by those who are late!
21 May 04
Originally posted by AcolyteI don't believe , that we will be reborn and that our new life is based on the deeds of our previous life.
The Strong law of large numbers says that, if you have N independent, identically distributed random variables, and you take the mean X of them (ie a sample mean):
X -> x as N -> ?, where x is the theoretical mean of the distribution. For example if you toss a fair coin repeatedly and keep count of the proportion of heads, it will tend to 1/2 as you make ...[text shortened]... you believe in life moving cyclically? If so, what aspects? Does this relate to the corollary?
But I do believe, that our collective future depends on a mixture of chance (mechanical ) and mental choices we make.
How much we can influence our future depends on the quality and the quantity of awareness we possess.
So, the development of our future is similar to your mathematical theorem. But we can influence how many-sided the cube will be that will determine our future.
Fjord
21 May 04
Well, the way I see it, everything that happens has a nonzero probability of happening again. And so, conceivably, the entire timeline of this universe could happen again. That's somewhat of a serial approach to reincarnation, but then there's the hypothesis that there's an infinite number of alternate universes out there which offer up a parallel approach. All in all, all things cycle. I am convinced of that.
21 May 04
Originally posted by AcolyteIn case it's any help:
The Strong law of large numbers says that, if you have N independent, identically distributed random variables, and you take the mean X of them (ie a sample mean):
X -> x as N -> ?, where x is the theoretical mean of the distribution. For example if you toss a fair coin repeatedly and keep count of the proportion of heads, it will tend to 1/2 as you make ...[text shortened]... you believe in life moving cyclically? If so, what aspects? Does this relate to the corollary?
I once watched a program that was going to prove that if you butter bread and drop it, it always seems to land with the butter side on the carpet.
So, they buttered 100 slices of bread and dropped them on a carpet. It ended up 51 to 49.
I can't remember if the buttered side was 51 or 49 though.
22 May 04
Originally posted by AcolyteDon't agree. The last winner of a lottery has exactly the same chance of winning with the next ticket as anyone else. You are saying good luck compensates bad luck - they balance out. Random events do not work out like that. If you get cancer you do not increase your chances of a lottery win.
The Strong law of large numbers says that, if you have N independent, identically distributed random variables, and you take the mean X of them (ie a sample mean):
X -> x as N -> ?, where x is the theoretical mean of the distribution. For example if you toss a fair coin repeatedly and keep count of the proportion of heads, it will tend to 1/2 as you make ...[text shortened]... you believe in life moving cyclically? If so, what aspects? Does this relate to the corollary?
What is expressed by the law of large number is that as your sample size gets bigger, the closer the proportion of winners gets to the predicted. No-one knows how well one person willl do when they play a casino slot machine but the casino can be fairly accurate as to what happens when ten thousand people put in their $20.
Nothing to do with karma I am afraid.
22 May 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWy(appologies 4 any offense incurred, i've been drinking, but.....)
Interesting.
But what about the idea that we "make" decisions? We don't usually just let things "happen" to us. At least I don't.
Does this not remove us from the "coin toss" realm into the "day planner" realm of existence?
Once on the path of life, you might as well walk. If you stop you will either forget where you're going or get trampled by those who are late!
Starvalley, i expected nothing less, you have managed to totally NOT answer the question while super impossing your own reality, read the question again, thank you !
22 May 04
Originally posted by marinakatombYou are the one off on the tangent. People talk about being lucky as if is inevitable and has nothing to do with the individual. It is unlucky to be injured in a car crash but drinking increases your chances of doing so. Luck is a statistical probability - and you make your own luck, good or bad.
(appologies 4 any offense incurred, i've been drinking, but.....)
Starvalley, i expected nothing less, you have managed to totally NOT answer the question while super impossing your own reality, read the question again, thank you !
22 May 04
Originally posted by AcolyteKarma determines your future chances as a conseqence of your past actions. So it does not as some wrongly believe negate the concept of choice and influence on own life. On the contrary its more correct to view it as a theory of cause and effect.
The Strong law of large numbers says that, if you have N independent, identically distributed random variables, and you take the mean X of them (ie a sample mean):
X -> x as N -> infinity, where x is the theoretical mean of the distribution. For example if you toss a fair coin repeatedly and keep count of the proportion of heads, it will tend to 1/2 as you ...[text shortened]... you believe in life moving cyclically? If so, what aspects? Does this relate to the corollary?
The analogy with the strong law of large numbers (slln) does not hold as it deals with independent, identical distributed events. This would be the case if we were born and reborn as the same person with the same possibilities over and over. Karma however introduces a correlation between your incarnations thus the slln does not aply.
As to the corrolary it once more fails when compared to real life as it requires an infinite number of independent realizasions. An example: there is a small but none the less non zero probability that Sharon would sudendly realize that he had been on the wrong track, make peace with his neighbors and withdraw from the occupied territories. Due to the coorolary this wil then happen with probability 1 - but this only works if Sharon remains prime minister of Israel from here to infinity.
22 May 04
Originally posted by ScheelAh, but if there was no such correlation - couldn't you say that, nevertheless, you'd eventually have everything done to you that you've done to others, so the karma would balance? My understanding of karma is that it doesn't promise anything in the short run, unless you believe that all disabled people maimed someone in the life immediately preceding this one or whatever.
The analogy with the strong law of large numbers (slln) does not hold as it deals with independent, identical distributed events. This would be the case if we were born and reborn as the same person with the same possibilities over and over. Karma however introduces a correlation between your incarnations thus the slln does not aply.
It's not really an analogy, but a direct comparison - the strong law of large numbers is believed by most mathematicians at least (😛), and some people believe in karma. I was wondering how these two beliefs differ.
22 May 04
Originally posted by steerpikeThat's because life is short, at least in terms of events like getting cancer. If you were to play the lottery every week for an extremely long time, you would be very likely to have won approx. 1 time in 14 million by the end of it. Similarly, if you sample a lot of people, the proportion which have cancer is a pretty good estimate of the chance of a person with 'average' risk factors having cancer at any one time.
Don't agree. The last winner of a lottery has exactly the same chance of winning with the next ticket as anyone else. You are saying good luck compensates bad luck - they balance out. Random events do not work out like that. If you get cancer you do not increase your chances of a lottery win.
Thus if people are reincarnated repeatedly, and no-one has any inherent bias in the process (ie you don't have good/unlucky souls or evil/lucky ones), the karma will balance in the long run, even without any system of natural justice. That is, unless you can do something that brings infinite good or bad karma...
22 May 04
Originally posted by AcolyteThe strong law of large numbers are "believed" by ALL mathematicians - its not realy a question of belief as you just have to read and understand the proof.
Ah, but if there was no such correlation - couldn't you say that, nevertheless, you'd eventually have everything done to you that you've done to others, so the karma would balance? My understanding of karma is that it doesn't promise anything in the short run, unless you believe that all disabled people maimed someone in the life immediately preceding t ...[text shortened]... at least (😛), and some people believe in karma. I was wondering how these two beliefs differ.
Karma is believed in by mainly Budists and Hindus aswell as some others who have found it to fit nicely with their more personal ideas about reincarnation.
I personally dont believe in reincarnation, so I dont expect my Karma to be outballanced through the everlasting cycle of reincarnations.
Over the shorter span of my own single life I try to do well to others because I think its right and admidtedly because I thereby hope to increase the chance that they will do well to me or others.
You may say that this last reason may be a local analogy of Karma, I just think that the word should be reserved for the grander theological scale.
As to your point with no correlation, but only an endless line of purely random incarnations, then you would eventionally experience everything and in the same aproximate proportion as everyone else.
But as far as I know this is not part of the beliefsystems that involve Karma.
The Hindus believe that your next incarnation is based on your Karma, so does the Budhists with the additional end goal of escaping the reincarnation cycle by maximizing Karma. Or something like that - I wont claim to be an expert on that.
02 Jun 04
1 edit
Originally posted by ScheelActually, according to Buddha, there are six different realms that we can be reborn in. Hell, Hungry Ghosts, Animals, Humans, Demi-gods, and Gods. These are only labels, though. Each name only refers to the amount of suffering that will happen in your life being born in that particular realm. For example, a god experiences almost no suffering, whereas a hell being experiences suffering almost constantly. Though, Earth is not the only planet with life, according to Buddha, and we can be reborn anywhere.
... so does the Budhists with the additional end goal of escaping the reincarnation cycle by maximizing Karma. Or something like that - I wont claim to be an expert on that.
Our karma determines our place of rebirth, and the type of living being that we are. To a Buddhist such as myself, we see the law of karma just like gravity, you don't have to believe in it for it to effect you, but it always will.
If a fire burned a house down, and the cheif fireman asked his team-mates what caused the fire, and they all said "oh, it just burned" he would not accept that, because he knows there was a cause of the fire (we know the effect was the house being burned to ashes) or else the house wouldn't have burned. Everything follows this "cause and effect". Everything that exists (cause), only exists because of a previous effect. To this, we can conclude there was no beginning to time, it just existed, because everything that exists needed something prior to exist.