Originally posted by jammerBut you agree that all decisions are either caused by something (logic, emotion, information etc) or random. Knightmeister is claiming that there exists a third option he calls Gods spirit that is somehow neither causal nor random but I am yet to see him explain what it is.
It would be logic v emotion
However, if your choice is not random then it is caused and thus you are a slave to the causes (logic or emotions it doesn't matter). I personally still call that free will as long as the causes are internal.
4 edits
Originally posted by NemesioYes, again, there are an infinitude of scenarios in which there are immeasurably
You don't understand. The problem is that four people who all agree, two of whom have advanced
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 ca awed expression of mine.
Thanks for your consideration, Knightmeister.
Nemesio
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. NEMESIO
I would be happy to defer to the greater expertise of my learned colleagues if they were able to show some understanding of my objection. So far no-one (yourself partially excepted) has really shown that they understand my objections. Also , because I am outnumbered does not make me wrong by implication.
I understand the issue of weight of probability and information not being present , it's just that I disagree with your conclusion.
The problem with the above is that lighting a fuse does have a potential causal relationship with the bomb exploding. The fuse is not a blorp or a piece of snot it is a mechanism designed to cause an explosion. If barr had said that placing a bannana next to and unconnected fuse would not raise the probability then that would have been a different matter because a bannana would not have a known causal relationship to bomb detonation. One could then say that there IS an equal chance of the bannana preventing or causing detonation. However , a lit fuse is a different matter. It DOES have a potential causal relationship to bomb detonation and DOES NOT have a known causal relationship to prevention of detonation. Therefore , common sense tells us that lighting a fuse (even if unconnected) in the proximity of a bomb is not going to prevent the bomb detonating in as many scenarios as it is going to cause it to detonate , even if those scenarios are miniscule.
The mathematicians are missing the point , we need to refer to an explosives expert.
Can you imagine an explosives expert responsible for healthy and safety saying " Wait you can't go in there yet I've got to make absolutely sure the bomb is safe by lighting the unnconnected fuse first" ????? I can't . But I CAN imagine him saying " Look , I know you are only pratting about by lighting that fuse for a laugh and I know that it's not connected but , hey , it's not a good idea really , put it out" . Can you imagine the man rsponding "But I was only trying to make the bomb safe!!" DUH????????
DON'T THINK PROBABILITIES - THINK EXPLOSIVES!!!
(The problem with barrs scenario was that he said "the" bomb not "a" bomb which suggests to me that the bomb is somewhere in the proximity of the fuse? This would be a more meaningful question than all your talk about blorps and coins.)
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhat you seem to be missing is that there is no necessary connection between a lit fuse and a bomb going off unless they are actually connected. Until they are contiguous, there can be no causal relationship. Talking about the potential for events to happen causally is pointless, it's just not causality, it's fortune telling.
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. NEMESIO
I would be happy to defer ...[text shortened]... would be a more meaningful question than all your talk about blorps and coins.)
Now you can induce from previous experience that bombs and fuses should not be brought into close proximity because of the threat of explosion, but this is an inductive decision based not on the nature of causality, but on past experience.
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt is you that missed the point and insisted on trying to bring in the minuscule probability that atoms may reconfigure themselves to form something totally new.
The mathematicians are missing the point , we need to refer to an explosives expert.
The point was quite clear from the beginning:
If there are two necessary conditions for an event to happen then the presence of a single condition does not increase the probability of the even happening if the second condition is known not to be met. In fact the probability of the event happening is 0 and remains 0 even after the first condition is present as by definition the conditions are both necessary for the event and the second condition is not met.
Your objection was along the lines of: in real life there is no such thing as "knowing" whether condition 2 will ever be met and there is no such thing as "necessary conditions" ie the bomb may go off for other reasons.
Originally posted by jammerWhat I meant was that a decision that is randomly arrived at is one
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.
that has no cause -- be it logic, emotion or anything else under your
control or purvue.
That is, the knowledge or gut feelings play no causal role in how you
arrive at the decision.
Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou have lost focus on the essential point that bbarr was trying to make.
I would be happy to defer to the greater expertise of my learned colleagues if they were able to show some understanding of my objection. So far no-one (yourself partially excepted) has really shown that they understand my objections. Also , because I am outnumbered does not make me wrong by implication.
I understand the issue of weight of probabi ...[text shortened]... would be a more meaningful question than all your talk about blorps and coins.)
A lit, unconnected fuse does not increase the likelihood of the bomb's
exploding unless the fuse is connected. His point was to illustrate
how some events work as causes by themselves or sometimes in
constellation. If you consider the following four scenarios, three of them
have the same probabilility, the fourth does not.
1) The probability that a bomb will explode when its fuse is unlit and unconnected;
2) The probability that a bomb will explode when its fuse is unlit and connected;
3) The probability that a bomb will explode when its fuse is lit and unconnected; and
4) The probability that a bomb will explode when its fuse is lit and connected.
For #s 1, 2, and 3, the probability is equally small, for #4 it is much higher.
You can say, but what if someone connects the fuse to #3. It then ceases
to be #3 and becomes #4 because the system has changed. This
is what my car and stable examples sought to illustrate, but you seemed
to miss it; the system changed in both cases and, so, the probability
changed.
If you still think that #s 2 and 3 have a higher chance, then I don't
know what to tell you. You are incorrectly assuming that the #1 state
has a smaller chance of spontaneously becoming #4 than either #s 2 or
3, but there is no reason to believe that. All three have an equally small
likelihood of becoming #4 and thus exploding because all three rely on
bizarre fantasy scenarios that have no measurable probabilistic value,
just like there is no way to measure the bizarre fantasy scenarios in
which #4 reverts back to #1. If you really think that #s 2 and 3 have
a higher chance becoming #4, then you have to show that the fantasy
scenarios that entail #2's becoming #4 are greater than #4's becoming
#2. You cannot do this, however, because those probabilities are all
infinitesimally small (and this is why they cancel out).
It's not because there are a majority of people here who disagree with
you that makes you wrong. It's that these people are trying by way of
example to get you thinking about probability in a cogent fashion. I'm
pretty much at the end of my rope, not because I'm frustrated, but because
I've run out of ways to explain how what you are asserting is incorrect.
So, try rereading my and everyone else's posts until you get it. And,
instead of insisting that you are right, try to pose your posts in the form
of a question because, I assure you, you as of yet have not grasped
this idea and your insistence that everyone else is confused is very tiresome
if you genuinely want to learn more about probability.
Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeisterNone of the points you have raised actually bear on the content of bbarr's claim. We have to distinguish between talk of conditional probability and talk of whatever exactly it is that you are on about. If we consider the probability that the bomb goes off given that some unconnected or freestanding (and in that sense unrelated) fuse has been lit; there is simply no meaningful information that allows me to distinguish that probability from the probability that the bomb goes off given that the same unconnected or freestanding (unrelated) fuse has not been lit. Now, whatever exactly it is that you are on about is something altogether different. You're claiming basically that if one were to light the unconnected fuse, then it's possible that somehow in the next few moments the fuse would become connected to the bomb and incite detonation -- e.g., someone picks up the fuse and connects it while it is lit or something. Well, I'm not going to argue with that, but that is hardly relevant. Nothing you have said is relevant.
According to your line of thought (along the lines of throwing a carburetor into an engine case), if I were to visit an empty display at an auto show; blow my nose and wipe the snot on the display floor; that would increase the probability that a car will be on display there when I revisit the show tomorrow morning. After all, one "possibility" for the ...[text shortened]... ative probability of an explosion would not cause me to run but given a trillion universes?
You're also getting far off the track. On an intellectual level, I am genuinely concerned for your view of 'free will'. It just seems so impoverished and unintelligible. I'm interested in how you will respond to bbarr's latest thought experiment.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI guess I would also add, knightmeister, that you raise other points like, you know, maybe the fuse doesn't need to be "connected" per se and that maybe it is sufficient just that the fuse be lit and in sufficiently close proximity to thermally agitate the bomb; or something along those lines. This sort of objection is also missing bbarr's point, which is that if there are conditions that are only collectively sufficient for bringing about an effect, then there is no relationship of dependency between the effect and any of the individual conditions. An objection like the one above isn't any sort of forceful objection to bbarr's claim because you merely take one set of only collectively sufficient conditions [the fuse being lit; the fuse being connected] and just substitute in another set of only collectively sufficient conditions [the fuse being lit; the fuse being in close enough proximity to the bomb].
None of the points you have raised actually bear on the content of bbarr's claim. We have to distinguish between talk of conditional probability and talk of whatever exactly it is that you are on about. If we consider the probability that the bomb goes off given that some unconnected or freestanding (and in that sense unrelated) fuse has been lit; there lligible. I'm interested in how you will respond to bbarr's latest thought experiment.
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo barr's argument was right but his analogy was naff?
I guess I would also add, knightmeister, that you raise other points like, you know, maybe the fuse doesn't need to be "connected" per se and that maybe it is sufficient just that the fuse be lit and in sufficiently close proximity to thermally agitate the bomb; or something along those lines. This sort of objection is also missing bbarr's point, ...[text shortened]... ent conditions [the fuse being lit; the fuse being in close enough proximity to the bomb].
Originally posted by LemonJelloIf we consider the probability that the bomb goes off given that some unconnected or freestanding (and in that sense unrelated) fuse has been lit; there is simply no meaningful information that allows me to distinguish that probability from the probability that the bomb goes off given that the same unconnected or freestanding (unrelated) fuse has not been lit.LEMON
None of the points you have raised actually bear on the content of bbarr's claim. We have to distinguish between talk of conditional probability and talk of whatever exactly it is that you are on about. If we consider the probability that the bomb goes off given that some unconnected or freestanding (and in that sense unrelated) fuse has been lit; there ...[text shortened]... lligible. I'm interested in how you will respond to bbarr's latest thought experiment.
Yes there is some meaningful information. A madman walks up and connects the fuse (remember virg tech) or a spark jumps from the fuse to the bomb or someone makes a mistake and forgot to disconnect the fuse etc etc.
I fail to imagine any scenarios where lighting the fuse PREVENTS detonation and if I could then I doubt they would be as likely as the others.
Lighting the fuse opens up a range of highly unlikely (but possible) scenarios for detonation which not lighting the fuse prevents us from considering . Thus the probability is raised because although these scenarios are highly unlikely , the scenarios would have to be 0% possible in order for it not to be raised.
A monkey writing the complete works of shakespeare just by tapping away on a keyboard seems a proposterous idea but in probability terms (given enough time) who knows? I would give said monkey a better chance with a keyboard than a bannana because there is a causal link between keyboards and writing. This is the whole point of probability , that nothing can be said to be impossible , only very very unlikely.
Originally posted by NemesioI 'm sorry you are frustrated but I must insist on bringing up the vital issue of TENSE. Let me expalin here agan it an issue of TENSE or the TIME frame of events or POTENTIAL events.
You have lost focus on the essential point that bbarr was trying to make.
A lit, unconnected fuse does not increase the likelihood of the bomb's
exploding [b]unless the fuse is connected. His point was to illustrate
how some events work as causes by themselves or sometimes in
constellation. If you consider the following four scenarios, three of th ...[text shortened]... is very tiresome
if you genuinely want to learn more about probability.
Nemesio[/b]
The only way I can illustrate this is by rephrasing (my changes in capitals) your proposition....
Note here how you use both FUTURE tense and PRESENT tense. You cannot do this with probability because probability is about PREDICTION !! GARGH. WHY DOES NO-ONE GET THIS???? It's too obvious probably)
"1) The probability that a bomb will (MAY) explode when its fuse is unlit (BUT MAY BECOME LIT) and (BUT MAY BECOME CONNECTED) unconnected;
2) The probability that a bomb will (MAY) explode when its fuse is unlit and connected (BUT COULD BECOME LIT OR UNCONNECTED);
3) The probability that a bomb will (MAY) explode when its fuse is lit and unconnected (BUT COULD BECOME CONNECTED OR UNLIT) ; and
4) The probability that a bomb will (MAY) explode when its fuse is lit and connected (BUT COULD BECOME UNLIT AND UNCONNECTED). "
The point about probability is that it is not a statement about what IS actually happening at that time but about what MAY happen. The fact that the fuse is inconnected/connected or lit unlit AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME is not the point . It's about what MAY happen. Any old twit (even me) knows that a bomb that is not connected to a lit fuse is not going to go off AS LONG AS IT REMAINS unconnected. But if we are talking about probability we cannot know this because it's a future event.
Here's where you go wrong...you say...
"A lit, unconnected fuse does not increase the likelihood of the bomb's
exploding unless the fuse is connected"
What you should have said was " unless it it is guaranteed NEVER to become connected" Instead you used the present tense (ie the CURRENT state of the fuse) as a guarantee of the future condition of the fuse.
You have mixed tenses because the only way you can guarantee the non-connection of the fuse is by witnessing the entire process and knowing that that was what ACTUALLY happened. The CURRENT state of the fuse is irrelevant because we are trying to make a prediction NOT a present TENSE observation.
If you already know that the fuse STAYS unconnected then what's the point in talking about probability? BARR might as well said that there is no way a fuse can ever be connected to a bomb and left it at that.
Given the events in virginia I wonder if ultimately his analogy is flawed. What we are really arguing about is whether highly unlikely events can be rightly described as impossible. The world around us tells us that they can't .
Originally posted by StarrmanTalking about the potential for events to happen causally is pointless, it's just not causality, it's fortune telling
What you seem to be missing is that there is no necessary connection between a lit fuse and a bomb going off [b]unless they are actually connected. Until they are contiguous, there can be no causal relationship. Talking about the potential for events to happen causally is pointless, it's just not causality, it's fortune telling.
Now you can ...[text shortened]... ut this is an inductive decision based not on the nature of causality, but on past experience.[/b]
...but barr was talking about probability of an event occuring , and thus he WAS talking about potentiality!!!
Originally posted by StarrmanWhat you seem to be missing is that there is no necessary connection between a lit fuse and a bomb going off unless they are actually connected. Until they are contiguous, there can be no causal relationship
What you seem to be missing is that there is no necessary connection between a lit fuse and a bomb going off [b]unless they are actually connected. Until they are contiguous, there can be no causal relationship. Talking about the potential for events to happen causally is pointless, it's just not causality, it's fortune telling.
Now you can ...[text shortened]... ut this is an inductive decision based not on the nature of causality, but on past experience.[/b]
...and what you are missing is that probability concerns what may potentially happen and since barr said that the probabilty was not raised he was mixing tenses (future /present) . He already took it as read that the fuse could never become connected which he was not entitled to do. He mixed actuality with potentiality.
If I said to you "don't worry there's no greater chance of your gun going off with the safety catch off than there is with it on" you might ask "why?" If I then said "It's because it's part of a causal chain that needs to happen in constellation with other events so don't worry the gun is no more likely to go off now than it was before because unless the trigger gets pulled it can't go off. Until these events are contiguous it can't happen"
What might you say? (Clue "Yeah but what if I drop it?If I drop it with the safety catch on I'm Ok "😉
Originally posted by knightmeisterSigh 😞
What you seem to be missing is that there is no necessary connection between a lit fuse and a bomb going off unless they are actually connected. Until they are contiguous, there can be no causal relationship
...and what you are missing is that probability concerns what may potentially happen and since barr said that the probabilty was not raised he ...[text shortened]... Clue "Yeah but what if I drop it?If I drop it with the safety catch on I'm Ok "😉
Originally posted by StarrmanFurther, there are cases where it is only a constellation of causes that are jointly sufficient to bring about some effect, where in the absence of any one of the causes the others don't even raise the probability of the effect occuring. Lighting the fuse doesn't raise the probability of the bomd detonating unless the fuse is connected to the bomb, and connecting the fuse doesn't raise the probability of the bomb detonating unless the fuse is lit.BARR
Sigh 😞
This is what he said. How is he guaranteeing the absence of one of the causes. Can he predict the future?