Originally posted by NemesioMaybe my problem is that I placed barrs scenario in the real world of things rather than imagined it as a mathematical model?
You are so profoundly confused that it's sincerely hard to know where to
begin.
Probability is indeed about prediction, about something that is going to
happen at some point in the future. This statistic is derived from the
examination of the present state of the system and the results that can
develop from it. Thus, it requires the use of two ten ...[text shortened]... as you see fit.
I apologize for any errors because of my own ignorance.
You misunderstood my point about tense . The term "unless" is a bit meaningless surely. If I say
"the probability of the petrol station exploding is not raised by me walking into it with a flame thrower on UNLESS the flame happens to ignite the petrol"
then the word "unless" is a bit dumb here. It's needless. Any idiot knows that the second bit has to happen for it to be dangerous ...but you still wouldn't do it. We can only use the word "unless" in a meaningful way if the probability of the second event is 0% . This is the hub of the debate. Can we say that it is in barr's scenario? We can only do this in a mathematical model , but in the real world we know that bombs and lit fuses don't mix. If there was no bomb in the vicinity why did barr talk about "the bomb"?
In the real world a health and safety expert would be shouting at you if you lit the fuse (even unconnected) because it's just NOT worth pratting about with.
Originally posted by SwissGambitNo , I introduced a man who might be suicidal (not that uncommon) and jumping sparks . I am entitled to do this because if barr's scenario only exists in some cyber world is it really relevant?
Not for you, evidently. In this thread, you've introduced everything from saboteurs to jumping sparks to spontaneous combustion of the bomb.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWould you be prepared to rate each case in terms of it's probability or at least say how hard it was for you to imagine? That would then be fair because you will no doubt be able to equal my list in number but can you equal it in plausibility (or quality)?
OK, let's go toe to toe. You imagine a case, and then I'll imagine one, and then you imagine one, and then I imagine one. Whoever runs out first loses.
You can go first if you like.
I'll start...
The lit fuse (or the thing that was used to light the fuse) sets fire to something else and there is some kind of general fire and people panic . No-one wants to go near the bomb out of fear and it gets left behind and explodes due to heat. The police ask afterwards "why did you light that fuse ? Was it really a good idea?"
RATING - Not very difficult to imagine , very unlikely , but scenarios similar to this (involving gas cannisters and smoking for example) have been known to happen therefore there is a precedent of some sort.
Your turn , remember it's quality that counts . I may run out before you due to boredom but I bet I can beat you for quality.
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf you add information of your own, you've changed the scenario. You can't refer to it as "barr's" anymore.
No , I introduced a man who might be suicidal (not that uncommon) and jumping sparks . I am entitled to do this because if barr's scenario only exists in some cyber world is it really relevant?
Originally posted by SwissGambitHowever , I doubt that in barrs scenario the fuse and the bomb are suspended in some neutral void unless his scenario is some electronic fantasy. We can deduce that ther must be someone there to light the fuse for example + some surface upon which the bomb/fuse rest? Also oxygen is useful. I'm sure barr didn't omit to mention these things because they weren't there.
If you add information of your own, you've changed the scenario. You can't refer to it as "barr's" anymore.
Originally posted by knightmeisterThere is a smoke detector and sprinkler system in the room that senses the lit fuse and automatically douses it.
I'll start...
The lit fuse (or the thing that was used to light the fuse) sets fire to something else and there is some kind of general fire and people panic . No-one wants to go near the bomb out of fear and it gets left behind and explodes due to heat. The police ask afterwards "why did you light that fuse ? Was it really a good idea?"
RATI ...[text shortened]... that counts . I may run out before you due to boredom but I bet I can beat you for quality.
RATING: Not very difficult to imagine, reasonably likely, as people tend to bomb large public places which tend to be equipped with such safety features.
6 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWill you allow me to dispute this one as not qualifying on the grounds that lighting the fuse did not prevent the bomb going off because the bomb was not going to go off anyway?
There is a smoke detector and sprinkler system in the room that senses the lit fuse and automatically douses it.
RATING: Not very difficult to imagine, reasonably likely, as people tend to bomb large public places which tend to be equipped with such safety features.
A better example would be one where the ACTUAL LIGHTING of the fuse prevented a detonation that would have happened if the fuse hadn't been lit. In your secenario the fuse merely prevented itself which is ...erhem...less impressive....because the better way to prevent ANY risk of detonation would be to not light it at all in the first place.
Infact the only way your example could be said to be valid would be if there WAS indeed a risk of detonation from lighting said fuse...which validates my position more than yours.
Of course I realise that you may have also changed the scenario. It sounds as if you are talking about a terrorist attack of some kind? If so did you connect the fuse or something?
Sorry for being such an idiot but it seems to me that you use my scenario first and then counter it with a sprinkler system. If this is the case my solution (just not lighting the fuse) would be more effective and better quality because the sprinkler system could fail. Not lighting the fuse eliminiates the risk at source. Could you give me a scenario where it would be a good idea to light the fuse in the first place?
My go again?
A man watching the fuse has been suffering from severe depression and decides suicidally to connect the fuse. BOOOM
RATING- Very Unlikely , but reasonable given world events . Some precedent to this given analysis of human behaviour.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterWill you allow me to dispute this one as qualifying on the grounds that lighting the fuse did not prevent the bomb going off because the bomb was not going to go off anyway?
Will you allow me to dispute this one as qualifying on the grounds that lighting the fuse did not prevent the bomb going off because the bomb was not going to go off anyway?
A better example would be one where the ACTUAL LIGHTING of the fuse prevented a detonation that would have happened if the fuse hadn't been lit. In your secenario the fuse mere ...[text shortened]... ting said fuse...which validates my position more than yours.
Sorry for being such an idiot!
LMAO! But this is just what everybody else has been claiming all along. LOL.
Infact the only way your example could be said to be valid would be if there WAS indeed a risk of detonation from lighting said fuse...which validates my position more than yours.
LMAO! You've been claiming all along that lighting the fuse does in fact raise the risk.
LOL. LMAO! Oh my God, it' just too much! I can't take it anymore.
Originally posted by knightmeisterCan you really assume all that? Given your wildly "imaginative" approach to probability, I am surprised that you would assume anything at all.
However , I doubt that in barrs scenario the fuse and the bomb are suspended in some neutral void unless his scenario is some electronic fantasy. We can deduce that ther must be someone there to light the fuse for example + some surface upon which the bomb/fuse rest? Also oxygen is useful. I'm sure barr didn't omit to mention these things because they weren't there.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI can't get over how hilarious this is. You're the wind beneath my wings.
OK, let's go toe to toe. You imagine a case, and then I'll imagine one, and then you imagine one, and then I imagine one. Whoever runs out first loses.
You can go first if you like.
Quiz question for knigtmeister:
Explain breifly why Herr Doctor's proposal to compare lists of probability affecting conditions is an exercise in absurdist humor.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLMAO! You've been claiming all along that lighting the fuse does in fact raise the risk.
[b]Will you allow me to dispute this one as qualifying on the grounds that lighting the fuse did not prevent the bomb going off because the bomb was not going to go off anyway?
LMAO! But this is just what everybody else has been claiming all along. LOL.
Infact the only way your example could be said to be valid would be if there WAS ...[text shortened]... ct raise the risk.
LOL. LMAO! Oh my God, it' just too much! I can't take it anymore.
LOL. LMAO! Oh my God, it' just too much! I can't take it anymore.
DR SCRIBBLES
TSK TSK. You have misunderstood me. Lighting the fuse does raise the risk of detonation in my opinion. So I agree with your scenario because it shows that lighting the fuse is not a good idea.
I have shown in my scenario how lighting the fuse would be a more risky thing to do than not lighting it because in my scenario the resulting fire leads to detonation. Therefore , not lighting the fuse is the best thing to do to stop the risk.
Now in your scenario you have NOT shown how lighting the fuse is beneficial in anyway. In your scenario I can STILL say that not lighting the fuse in the first place is the best policy rather than lighting it because if one eliminates the risk even before the sprinklers come on its obviously better than risking the possibility of sprinkler failure later. If you don't light the fuse then you don't have to even run the risk in the first place.
What you need to do (which you have so far failed to do) is come up with a scenario where one could say that it is better to light the fuse and that NOT lighting the fuse is the worst option. This is what you have failed to do and I have so far succeeded in doing in reverse.
No stop patronising me and think man , really think!
Originally posted by bbarrI know it's funny , I couldn't resist! I love it when people underestimate me . Did you spot the flaw in his first scenario?
I can't get over how hilarious this is. You're the wind beneath my wings.
Quiz question for knigtmeister:
Explain breifly why Herr Doctor's proposal to compare lists of probability affecting conditions is an exercise in absurdist humor.