2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioHowever -- and this is where knightmeister needs to pay attention -- this is very different than
This is precisely where he is getting stuck. He is confusing additional information which
changes the possible remaining outcomes with a constellation of events.
For him the fuse's being lit is like the first child's being born; it's the first of two necessary criteria
for the thing to take place.
You explained your part. With th earn from your past misunderstandings
and evolve a little here.
Nemesio
bbarr's scenario. In bbarr's scenario, he is saying that a bomb is highly unlikely to spontaneously to
go off unless both the fuse is connected and the fuse is lit. Merely connecting the unlit
fuse doesn't change the bomb's likelihood of going off -- it's not information like knowing the outcome
of the first child. Similarly, merely lighting an unconnected fuse doesn't change the bomb's likelihood
of going off -- it must be connected to increase it.NEMESIO
Do you not see the contradiction in the above?
"In bbarr's scenario, he is saying that a bomb is highly unlikely to spontaneously to
go off unless both the fuse is connected and the fuse is lit."
You admit that it is highly unlikely that the bomb will go off but there is some possibility. If there is always a greater than 0% possibility of an explosion then if we light the fuse then there is always the possibility that it could form part of a chain of events that could lead to the bomb exploding . Infact BARR did not say this at all. He eliminated the possibility of the fuse becoming connected , whereas you just said that it was "highly unlikely" which is not the same as impossible.
Now stop patronising me and think about it. How is one to reduce the probability of the fuse becoming connected to absolute zero? It can't be done. In which case the lighting of the fuse could still lead to an explosion , in which case the lighting itself has potentially brought us closer to that event. Potentially is the key word here. Once you realise that impossible and improbable are not the same thing you'll crack it.
Originally posted by knightmeisterBut you are forgetting something. Yes, there is a small chance that it will increase it. But, there
Yes, however bizarre it may sound . It could infact raise the probability (which would be ludicrously low) that a car might appear tomorrow. it could of course lower it because the person going to fetch the car might slip on your snot break his leg and not get the car. We simply don't know. If we say that your snot is guaranteed to be 0% significant in ...[text shortened]... elative probability of an explosion would not cause me to run but given a trillion universes?
is a small chance that it will decrease it, too. The placing of the snot does not add useful
information about whether it will increase or not; maybe the snot's presence will make a guy say:
'Hey, I'm not placing a car here. It's dirty!' The snot's presence doesn't in and of itself increase
or decrease it in any predictable way (which is what probability is all about). You cannot make any
definitive statements about whether it increases or decreases the production of a car, therefore it is
probabilitistically meaningless. It has no information. I am hoping that you finally understand this
now.
The same thing is true about merely lighting the fuse. You are fantasizing about events that
are very improbable -- maybe the wind will blow it together, maybe someone will bump it -- things
with miniscule chances. But you are not fantasizing about the other things that will decrease the
odds even further -- someone will see a lit fuse and put it out, someone one will move the bomb to
another room. There are an infinite number of bizarre and unpredictable scenarios, some of which
increase the odds, some of which decrease the odds which one could fantasize about. These all
cancel out because they have no measurable values of themselves. There is no information present.
However an attached and lit fuse does provide information; certainly you can see how this
manifestly increases the odds of the bomb's exploding. Yes, all the bizarre fantasy scenarios exist
(and new ones come into play) but they don't have measurable consequences. For every one you
can invent -- someone will come and blow the fuse out -- I can create a counterexample which would
negate it -- an bomb-liking alien will eat him before he blows out the fuse. These fantasy situations
do not have measurable values and cannot be statistically considered. However the constellation of
lit and connected fuse does add a measurable probability to it.
Do you understand this now?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThere are an infinite number of bizarre and unpredictable scenarios, some of which
But you are forgetting something. Yes, there is a small chance that it will increase it. But, there
is a small chance that it will decrease it, too. The placing of the snot does not add useful
information about whether it will increase or not; maybe the snot's presence will make a guy say:
'Hey, I'm not placing a car here. It's dirty!' The sn ...[text shortened]... ]does[/i] add a measurable probability to it.
Do you understand this now?
Nemesio
increase the odds, some of which decrease the odds which one could fantasize about. These all
cancel out because they have no measurable values of themselves. There is no information present. NEMESIO
But the information we DO have is the fuse is lit.
How do scenarios "cancel each other out"? Duh? If there is a 50-50 chance a horse will win and a 50-50 chance that the horse will lose. Does one 50 cancel out the other??? Of course not.
So FINALLY you accept that there is at least a miniscule possibility of the fuse becoming connected!!!!! Hurrah. Now think about all these unpredictable scenarios (maybe millions of them) If we say there are 100 million scenarios and in 99,999,999 of them the fuse does not become connected but in one of them it does then we could calculate the odds. Of course we cannot know . BUT we do know that it can't be ruled out entirely. Have you followed this. ??
Now work it backwards . Let's say there is a 10-1 chance of the fuse being lit. That would mean that the chances of the bomb exploding could be said to be 10 x 100 million to 1 which would be 1000 million to 1. Now if you light the fuse you have taken away the 10-1 value and the odds have increased to 100 million -1 . In the 100 million - 1 shot that the the fuse does become connected it requires that the fuse is lit. By lighting the fuse you have taken away that hurdle.
It makes no difference that the odds are astronomical . As long as they are not 0% then the maths works.
Originally posted by NemesioBut you are forgetting something. Yes, there is a small chance that it will increase it. But, there
But you are forgetting something. Yes, there is a small chance that it will increase it. But, there
is a small chance that it will decrease it, too. The placing of the snot does not add useful
information about whether it will increase or not; maybe the snot's presence will make a guy say:
'Hey, I'm not placing a car here. It's dirty!' The sn ...[text shortened]... ]does[/i] add a measurable probability to it.
Do you understand this now?
Nemesio
is a small chance that it will decrease it, too.NEMESIO
But I did realise that if you had read more carefully. Your problem is you have written me off as an idiot before you have read carefully what I am saying.
Originally posted by NemesioThe snot's presence doesn't in and of itself increase
But you are forgetting something. Yes, there is a small chance that it will increase it. But, there
is a small chance that it will decrease it, too. The placing of the snot does not add useful
information about whether it will increase or not; maybe the snot's presence will make a guy say:
'Hey, I'm not placing a car here. It's dirty!' The sn ...[text shortened]... ]does[/i] add a measurable probability to it.
Do you understand this now?
Nemesio
or decrease it in any predictable way (which is what probability is all about). You cannot make any
definitive statements about whether it increases or decreases the production of a car, therefore it is
probabilitistically meaningless. It has no information. I am hoping that you finally understand this
now. NEMESIO
Now you are getting there. You have to ask yourself is lighting a fuse for a bomb probabilistically meaningless? A lit fuse does have a relationship to bombs exploding. If the bomb is not that far away (barr did not say) maybe some madman could connect it ? A lit fuse is one of the neccessary events for detonation to occur. Even by your own faulty reasoning I can think of more reasons why lighting a fuse could lead to an explosion than I can for thinking it might prevent an explosion.
Originally posted by NemesioThese fantasy situations
But you are forgetting something. Yes, there is a small chance that it will increase it. But, there
is a small chance that it will decrease it, too. The placing of the snot does not add useful
information about whether it will increase or not; maybe the snot's presence will make a guy say:
'Hey, I'm not placing a car here. It's dirty!' The sn ...[text shortened]... ]does[/i] add a measurable probability to it.
Do you understand this now?
Nemesio
do not have measurable values and cannot be statistically considered. However the constellation of
lit and connected fuse does add a measurable probability to it.
Do you understand this now? NEMESIO
Do you understand that I have understood all along?
How does one discriminate between a fantasy situation and a potential situation. Would you say that someone with suicidal tendencies connecting the fuse is potentially measurable? Is this a fantasy? What about the chance that a spark carrying across to the bomb? Barr did not say how far away the bomb was. Does a possibility have to measurable in order for it to exist? Did quantum particles not exist 200 years ago because they were not measurable? The fact that you have admitted that there is a possibility means that the value of the probability of the fuse being connected cannot be 0% in real terms. The fact that you can't measure it is completely irrelevant. I cannot say that the sun will come up tomorrow , all I can say is that it is immeasurably likely but 100% , who can say? The fact that unlikely scenarios cannot be worked out statistically is irrelevant. What can be said is that the probability is not 0% . That's all we need to know. I do not need to calculate the probability of the fuse connecting only say it is not 0%. Then all I need to show is that lit fuses are related to explosions in a meaningful way , which is easy.
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou don't understand. The problem is that four people who all agree, two of whom have advanced
These fantasy situations
do not have measurable values and cannot be statistically considered. However the constellation of
lit and connected fuse does add a measurable probability to it.
Do you understand this now? NEMESIO
Do you understand that I have understood all along?
How does one discriminate between a fantasy situation and a pote ...[text shortened]... need to show is that lit fuses are related to explosions in a meaningful way , which is easy.
backgrounds in mathematics (one of whom who makes his living on probabilities!) are trying to
help you and you are insisting that they are all wrong. At some point -- DrS for example -- everyone
is going to shake the dirt off his sandals and say, 'This man cannot be taught,' or you are going to
reflect on it and either ask for clarification or understand it.
For my part, I am going to try again.
Given: A bomb, unlit and without a fuse. The likelihood that it is going to explode is miniscule, right?
There are an infinitude of scenarios that we could fantasize about in which the bomb explodes, all
of which are highly unlikely. There are also an infinitude of scenarios that we could fantasize about
in which the bomb is utterly prevented from exploding. None of the probabilities for these fantasy
scenarios are measurable -- neither the pro or con versions -- which makes them probabilistically
meaningless.
For example, if I asked you what's the likelihood that a blorp is going to eat the next bloop it sees,
what would you say? You don't know what a blorp or a bloop is, much less if blorps eat bloops or
if blorps can even eat them, or how often they eat them and so on. This question has no meaningful
probability because the odds are unmeasurable. Why? Because there is no information.
Are you with me so far?
Okay. So given the bomb above. There is some very small non-zero probability that it is going to
go off. Can one say, with any certainty, that lighting the unconnected fuse increases the probability
that the bomb will go off? Yes, again, there are an infinitude of scenarios in which there are immeasurably
small chances that merely lighting the unconnected fuse will cause it to go off, but, again, there are
an infinitude of scenarios with immeasurably small chances in which the lit fuse diminishes the likelihood
that it will go off. Again, all of these scenarios are infinitesimally possible, but there is no way to
assign an increase or decrease to them.
That would be saying that there is a 49% chance of getting a heads and a 50% chance of getting a
tails on a flipped coin because there might be a heads-coin-eating monster ready to swallow the
coin before it lands. Sure it's infinitesimally possible, but so is the chance of a tails-coin-eating
monster that you didn't figure in. And so, given that there are an infinitude of unlikely influences,
the question is can you measure whether the unlikely influences are more likely to effect a change in
one direction as opposed to the other? And you can't. With coin-eating monsters, you can't measure
the likelihood that a heads-coin-eating monster is more likely than a tails-coin-eating monster, so
you can't figure either of them into your probabilistic estimation. All you have is the definition of
coin (50/50 heads/tails) and no other information.
Similarly, you cannot say with any confidence that having a lit, unconnected fuse makes it more
likely based on fantasy scenarios because you cannot measure their likelihood nor the likelihood that
the opposite is going to take place. You have no information about either, so they cannot fit in to your
probabilistic equating.
And, so we come to the final scenario, in which the constellation of a lit and connected fuse is considered.
We now can say, with confidence based on what we know about bombs, that the odds of the bomb's
exploding has indeed increased because we know the information that lit and connected fuses
set off chain reactions that cause bombs to explode. Again, there are many fantasy situations all of
which are immeasurably unlikely, in which the bomb might not go off -- floods, angry lit-fuse eating
monsters, God intervenes, whatever -- but, again, because we cannot measure them against other
infinitesimally unlikely scenarios, they have no probabilistic weight.
Knightmeister: Read my post and digest it before responding. Throw away your previous conceptions
about probability for a few hours. Let it all go and read this post. Give a few hours' contemplation
on this before replying, unless DrS (who indeed has forgotten more about probability than I am ever
likely to know) wants to modify any flawed expression of mine.
Thanks for your consideration, Knightmeister.
Nemesio
Originally posted by twhiteheadCan't say I understand the question clearly.
Do you think that your internal decision making process is causal or random?
You got BIG decisions, like, should I kill this prick that's buggin' me? .. and your little decisions, like, should I call this $2 bet on the river?
The 2nd example would sometimes be a random choice based on incomplete information. In the 1st example, my sense of right/wrong would play a big part and would fight it out with my instinct to kill the prick.
It would be logic v emotion
Originally posted by jammerWhether you use logic or your gut doesn't make the choice random -- either your reasoning or
You got BIG decisions, like, should I kill this prick that's buggin' me? .. and your little decisions, like, should I call this $2 bet on the river?
The 2nd example would sometimes be a random choice based on incomplete information. In the 1st example, my sense of right/wrong would play a big part and would fight it out with my instinct to kill the prick.
It would be logic v emotion
your 'instinct' is the cause. If you are contemplating calling a raise on the river, then you are using
the incomplete information from what you have in your hand, how the person bet his hole cards,
the flop and turn, how he has played throughout the match, any tells he may have inadvertently
given you, and, ultimately, your gut. The choice isn't random per se -- that is, outside of your
control -- but the product of careful study (reason) and guesswork (gut). You may want it to appear
random to throw off your opponent, but, again, that's a strategic decision that you are consciously
(and causally) applying.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI see you're a player.
Whether you use logic or your gut doesn't make the choice random -- either your reasoning or
your 'instinct' is the cause. If you are contemplating calling a raise on the river, then you are using
the incomplete information from what you have in your hand, how the person bet his hole cards,
the flop and turn, how he has played throughout the match, any ...[text shortened]... that's a strategic decision that you are consciously
(and causally) applying.
Nemesio
I'd call the 2nd example (poker) an educated guess. I've got 'some' information, but don't know exactly what he holds.
The decision of whether or not to kill someone will come down to a (short) battle between reason and impulse. First blush is to unload on him, but when the consequences are considered it's very hard to actually do.
i usually compromise and just break his legs.