5 edits
Originally posted by NemesioThe Monty Hall problem oft discussed in Puzzles is the quintessential example of these sorts of scenarios. Once you understand any of them, you should understand them all. They are all about redistribution of probability upon new information.
Perhaps we should take a more casual example, Mr Probability.
Let's say I am making a bet at a car race in which 10 cars are racing
(numbered 'A' through 'J'😉. Let's assume that each of these cars has
an equal chance of winning/placing/showing (do they use these terms
for cars?). If I make a bet that 'A' will come in first and 'B' will come in
seco viously). When the first gives birth to a male, have my
odds changed?
Nemesio
6 edits
Originally posted by NemesioOf course the odds have changed in both cases. In each, you have gained information about the system in question such that you can distinguish some previously possible states as no longer being possible. Since probabilities sum to 1, this means that all of that probability that was previously distributed among the now impossible states must be redistributed among the remaining possible states.
Perhaps we should take a more casual example, Mr Probability.
Let's say I am making a bet at a car race in which 10 cars are racing
(numbered 'A' through 'J'😉. Let's assume that each of these cars has
an equal chance of winning/placing/showing (do they use these terms
for cars?). If I make a bet that 'A' will come in first and 'B' will come in
seco viously). When the first gives birth to a male, have my
odds changed?
Nemesio
In particular, your odds of winning your wager have improved to 1/9 from 1/90, because all of that probability previously associated with B finishing first, and with C finishing first, and with D finishing first, etc., must now be distributed elsewhere, namely, into those states in which A finishes first. And of those, B finishes second in exactly 1/9 of them.
Similarly, your odds of having two males becomes 1/2 after the first is born. This is because all of the probability previously associated with having a girl first must now be distributed elsewhere, again because probabilities always sum to 1. In any case, they should have used a rubber.
All life and matter are superfluous. God as generally defined is not needful of anything.Therefore, all that exist in the cosmological makeup is completely useless to a god. Is this all a hobby for god? God doesn't need a hobby. Are you needful to god? Ridiculous. Nothing can be of any use are gratification to god. Or do you claim he is an egoist? If so, some god....Come on guys, give your overworked ego and fear of death a break. Sit back and wait with great antiscipation for the next chapter in this story. In conclusion; I would enjoy meeting the source of something capable of creating something as stupendous as all this and who finds me a necessary part of it, or.....needs or wants my sanctioning.
Originally posted by NemesioKnightmeister is confused, however, about the idea that merely one
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]Lighting the fuse doesn't raise the probability of the bomb's detonating unless the fuse is connected to the bomb, and connecting the fuse doesn't raise the probability of the bomb's detonating unless the fuse is lit.
Indeed, 'unless' is the key word. We're not even asserting that the
likelihood of the bomb's g ...[text shortened]... n,
which doesn't hinge on the single events themselves).
Nemesio[/b]
of the two 'probability increasing' criteria increases the overall scenario.
It doesn't. That's the purpose of 'unless,' which he is misunderstanding. NEMESIO
Yes , I am confused. What does BARR mean by unless? Does he mean a) that the fuse IS not connected at that precise point in time or does he mean b) that the fuse could NEVER become connected?
If he means a) then all he would be saying is that when lighting the fuse the fuse could be said to be not connected , however , this does not eliminate the possibility of the fuse becoming connected at some point in the next few seconds. (and unless Barr can predict the future he cannot eliminate this possibility however small) . Also a) would not be about calculating probability any more because he would just be observing what is ACTUALLY happening. If he means b) then one might ask how barr could possibly eliminate this possibility however unlikely.
Since probability is all about prediction of events then one could rightly assume that barr means b) , otherwise he would just be describing what IS happening rather than trying to calculate the probability of something happening.
The loophole in his argument is this ....if he says "right I am going to light the fuse soon but don't worry it won't make it more likely for the bomb to go off because the fuse is not connected" . Technically I could pipe up and say "what if the fuse becomes connected by some event you haven't predicted " If he then says "don't worry there is a 0% chance of that happening" I would say "no , that is false...there is a unbelievably tiny chance of that happening (10000 trillion -1) but there is still a chance of it happening" He could have no response to this. Thus the only way he can say that lighting an unconnected fuse does not raise the probability is by saying that there is a 0% chance of the fuse being connected somehow. But this 0% stance does not stand up to rational scrutiny.
Maybe barr should clarify what he means by "unless" and not expect us to read his mind. Once you understand that technically when we say impossible what we really mean is "incredibly improbable" the penny might have a chance of dropping (10000-1 against?)
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioMeaningfully, it is the constellation of events (lit and connected) fuse
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]Lighting the fuse doesn't raise the probability of the bomb's detonating unless the fuse is connected to the bomb, and connecting the fuse doesn't raise the probability of the bomb's detonating unless the fuse is lit.
Indeed, 'unless' is the key word. We're not even asserting that the
likelihood of the bomb's g n,
which doesn't hinge on the single events themselves).
Nemesio[/b]
that increases the likelihood from whatever very small, but perhaps
non-zero probability. Merely doing one and only one doesn't increase
the probability.
NEMESIO
Oh come on think about it. Merely doing one and only one ??? How is one to guarantee that after doing one that the other CANNOT happen? If I take the safety catch off a loaded gun have I increased the chances of an accident? Of course I have! I may say to myself that I will "merely do one thing and not the other (fire the gun) " but how am I to guarantee that something else might not set the gun off? To say "only one" is your delusion. You rationally cannot guarantee it unless you can predict the future that is. This is the ultimate flaw in the argument. Has the penny dropped yet?
If barr had said "would not raise the probability by VERY MUCH" then he would be right. But he didn't.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSo Dr , now calculate the risk of a lighted fuse becoming connected to a bomb. I 'd love to see you say 0%
Of course the odds have changed in both cases. In each, you have gained information about the system in question such that you can distinguish some previously possible states as no longer being possible. Since probabilities sum to 1, this means that all of that probability that was previously distributed among the now impossible states must be redi ...[text shortened]... here, again because probabilities always sum to 1. In any case, they should have used a rubber.
1 edit
Originally posted by Starrman
When you've finished not only telling me what I believe, but also misrepresenting my position, perhaps you'd like to tell me how my belief is incongruent. I have yet to hear why I cannot know the world is a certain way physically and treat it as if it is another way ontologically. If we employed a kind of Cartesian scepticism and doubted the nature of exis . In fact I truly think they are deluded enough to actually believe in magic and faeries.
Originally posted by bbarrThis is getting far too complicated. There can be reasons why free choices are made and there can be antecedents and deliberations. The causes are not so much the issue as whether the causes determine the choice. So in any given scenario I might have 10 + different options each with their own causes/reasons and influences etc but there still might be 10 different possible outcomes. The issue of free will comes down to when one says there is only ONE possible choice that can be made. As long as there is at least two possible choices it doesn't matter what reasons , deliberations , influences are involved a free choice is possible.
I'm sorry if my penchant for precision makes it more difficult to interpret your claims. As a general rule, you shouldn't throw around words like "cause" willy-nilly in a debate about causal determinism and free will.
Anyway, you are now claiming that when you freely chose to respond to my post, you did not cause yourself to choose nor was your choi ...[text shortened]... (for that would be to cause yourself to choose; an option you have already disavowed).
8 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhy?
So Dr , now calculate the risk of a lighted fuse becoming connected to a bomb. I 'd love to see you say 0%
Bbarr is making no claim about what happens if the fuse becomes connected. That's just what 'unless' means; that is, the proposition isn't asserting anything in the case that clause is met; that is, the term 'unless' delimits the scope of his proposition's claim; that is, his claim only speaks about those states of affairs in which the fuse is not in fact connected.
Nor is bbarr making any claim about the likelihood of the fuse becoming connected. Besides, it's not like he's referring to any real bomb anyway. It's just a theoretical construct, whose probability of becoming connected to a fuse he could freely stipulate to be zero, or .4, without it having any effect on his analysis, as he is asserting nothing about anything when the fuse is connected.
Originally posted by knightmeisterOnce you understand that some people, such as bbarr, actually say just what they mean, you'll be better prepared to understand their claims and arguments.
Once you understand that technically when we say impossible what we really mean is "incredibly improbable" the penny might have a chance of dropping (10000-1 against?)
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBbarr is making no claim about what happens if the fuse becomes connected
Why?
Bbarr is making no claim about what happens if the fuse becomes connected. That's just what 'unless' means; that is, the proposition isn't asserting anything in the case that clause is met; that is, the term 'unless' delimits the scope of his proposition's claim; that is, his claim only speaks about those states of affairs in which the fus ...[text shortened]... on his analysis, as he is asserting nothing about anything when the fuse is connected.
Nor is bbarr making any claim about the likelihood of the fuse becoming connected DR Scribbles
What rubbish. What exactly is he claiming then? He must be claiming a 0% chance of the fuse being connected because if he wasn't then he would not be able to argue that lighting said fuse would not raise the probability of the bomb going off. You say you understand probability?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBesides, it's not like he's referring to any real bomb anyway. It's just a theoretical construct, whose probability of becoming connected to a fuse he could freely stipulate to be zero, or .4, without it having any effect on his analysis, as he is asserting nothing about anything when the fuse is connected. DR scribbles
Why?
Bbarr is making no claim about what happens if the fuse becomes connected. That's just what 'unless' means; that is, the proposition isn't asserting anything in the case that clause is met; that is, the term 'unless' delimits the scope of his proposition's claim; that is, his claim only speaks about those states of affairs in which the fus ...[text shortened]... on his analysis, as he is asserting nothing about anything when the fuse is connected.
What is this wriggling nonsense? Theoretically Barr is able to claim a 0% chance of the fuse being connected but then what's the point of his argument then?
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSo his motivation is all important here? I saw what he was trying to say all along. Namely , that the probability of an outcome of two events is not raised if only the first one happens. The problem was that he did not say how he could guarantee the second event not happening (because he can't) . As soon as you bring the whole thing into the present tense then it isn't a prediction any more and has nothing to do with probability.The problem is he talked about it "not raising the probability". Which is a prediction of something that hasn't happened yet.
The very thing that you are missing, and the very motivation for constructing the example in the first place.
Answer this if I have an accumalator bet on two horses then I can only win if both horses win. If the first horse wins how are my chances not increased? One might say that I cannot win "unless" the second horse wins , but that is just plain obvious, however , the second horse still might win.
You might argue that the chances of a horse winning a race are much better than a fuse becoming connected but you cannot rule out the event.
You could say that when the second horse didn't win then the first horse winning becomes irrelevant , but if you do then you are talking about events that have ACTUALLY happened rather than the probability of events that COULD happen.
It's the time frame in which barr places the thought experiment in that's crucial . If he is talking about something that has just happened or is happening then why talk about probability (eg prediction) ?
As I said I will re state a reasoned argument until it is refuted.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou don't get it do you. If barr had said the "the bomb cannot explode unless the fuse is connected" then you are right. But he did say the probability of the bomb exploding is not raised unless the fuse is connected , and in doing so he has mixed tenses in talking about probability (future) and fuse not being connected(present). Is he about to light the fuse? Or is the fuse already lit? Is he talking about that precise moment in time or does he exclude the next 5 seconds (when presumably all sorts of things could happen including some idiot connecting the fuse)
Why?
Bbarr is making no claim about what happens if the fuse becomes connected. That's just what 'unless' means; that is, the proposition isn't asserting anything in the case that clause is met; that is, the term 'unless' delimits the scope of his proposition's claim; that is, his claim only speaks about those states of affairs in which the fus ...[text shortened]... on his analysis, as he is asserting nothing about anything when the fuse is connected.