why so angry?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Can you really assume all that? Given your wildly "imaginative" approach to probability, I am surprised that you would assume anything at all.

So you think it probable that barrs scenario exists floating in space or something? You think it impossible that there may be something ignitable around? Habve you ever heard of a fire leading to an explosion? mmmmm.... I think I have.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I love it when people underestimate me.

Does that happen often?

Originally posted by knightmeister

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!

OK, I'll play a bit more and leave it to you to decide if people are laughing at you or with you.

Imagine this. We are in a hotel lobby equipped with a smoke detector and sprinkler system. The Wicked Witch from Oz is there, sneaking toward the bomb to connect the fuse and light it. Her magical powers and her evil monkeys can overcome anybody who physically tries to block her way. However, we know that water is her one weakness. Now, imagine that I am standing at the fuse holding a lighter. If I can light it now, the smoke will be detected and the sprinklers will turn on, dissolving the Wicked Witch. I contend that in this scenario, lighting the fuse is more likely to prevent the detonation than never lighting it in the first place.


RATING: not too hard to imagine, but not very likely.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I know it's funny , I couldn't resist! I love it when people underestimate me . Did you spot the flaw in his first scenario?

There is not flaw in his scenario. In the scenario as described lighting the fuse does not raise the probability of the bomb exploding.

Originally posted by bbarr
Wow. Priceless.

You missunderstand. I phrased this poorly. What I meant was that it would be better in his sprinkler scenario to simply leave the fuse unlit rather than light it , which is my whiole point. He needs to show how actually lighting the fuse brings down the risk , whereas all he shows is that he has a chance of eliminating a risk from one of my scenarios. He is adapting one of my scenarios instead of creating one of his own.

I'll give you an example . If he said that someone was sneaking up to the bomb with some firework or something and let's say it was dark. Lighting the fuse might actually be a good thing to do as opposed to not lighting it because it might provide some light to see this guy and stop him from setting the bomb off. In this case it would be more risky to leave the fuse unlit.
In Dr's first scenario it is STILL more risky to light than not light the fuse because the risk only happens because the fuse gets lit in the first place.



please tell me you understand because I think we are all losing the will to live here. I'll detonate the bomb myself in a minute!!!!

Originally posted by bbarr
There is not flaw in his scenario. In the scenario as described lighting the fuse does not raise the probability of the bomb exploding.

So who lit the fuse then? There must have been somebody there? If there was what if his clothes catch fire and he falls on the bomb or something or the room catches fire? Does your scenario exist in some mathematical environment with no physical laws or matter present? If so is it relevant ot the real world?

Originally posted by knightmeister
He needs to show how actually lighting the fuse brings down the risk

Nobody has ever claimed that lighting the fuse reduces the risk.

Rather, people have been denying your claim that lighting the fuse raises the risk given that the fuse is disconnected at the time of the lighting. Thus, in our imagination game, we each suppose that the disconnected fuse has been lit and then imagine a scenario that leads to or away from the detonation.

Originally posted by knightmeister

In Dr's first scenario it is STILL more risky to light than not light the fuse because the risk only happens because the fuse gets lit in the first place.



please tell me you understand because I think we are all losing the will to live here. I'll detonate the bomb myself in a minute!!!!

EDIT: nevermind, I misread the Dr's first example.

Anyway, this discussion has reached the point of absurdity. I'm still interested in how you'll amend or reconsider your view on free will, but your ideas on the probability discussion have reached the point of 🙄.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
OK, I'll play a bit more and leave it to you to decide if people are laughing at you or with you.

Imagine this. We are in a hotel lobby equipped with a smoke detector and sprinkler system. The Wicked Witch from Oz is there, sneaking toward the bomb to connect the fuse and light it. Her magical powers and her evil monkeys can overcome anybody wh ...[text shortened]... ver lighting it in the first place.


RATING: not too hard to imagine, but not very likely.

Now you are getting the idea !! At last a scenario where it makes sense to light the fuse. Mind you how plausible is it compared to my first one? Are you claiming it to be just as likely as mine? Surely not.


Ok my go...

The fuse is lit , the bomb falls over cracks in some way and rolls over the fuse. Let's say the contents are nitro glycerine or something quite volatile. BOOM

Rating - No need for wicked witches . Unlikely but I'd bet there is some kind of precedent somehwere in history for a similarish event involving explosives which is more than I can say for your scenario.

I make me ahead easily on away goals at least!

Originally posted by knightmeister
You missunderstand. I phrased this poorly. What I meant was that it would be better in his sprinkler scenario to simply leave the fuse unlit rather than light it , which is my whiole point. He needs to show how actually lighting the fuse brings down the risk , whereas all he shows is that he has a chance of eliminating a risk from one of my scenarios. ...[text shortened]... think we are all losing the will to live here. I'll detonate the bomb myself in a minute!!!!

No. In the scenario as described lighting the fuse does no increase the probability of the bomb exploding. You could claim "but what if this is a special bomb that detonates when water hits it!", or any such other nonsense, but what you are doing in this case is changing the scenario. So, yes, I do understand. I understand that you have trouble grasping the very notion of a thought experiment, and find it difficult to abstract away from possible actual world contexts when discussing simple hypotheticals.

I find it incredibly funny that you have just provided a scenario where lighting the fuse actually decreases the probability of the bomb exploding. Now, if you can do that once for every time you can come up with a scenario where lighting the fuse increases the probability of the bomb exploding, you will understand your most fundamental error. Or, rather, when you realize just how pointless it would be to try and list opposing scenarios you will have all the information you need to understand your most fundamental error.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So who lit the fuse then? There must have been somebody there? If there was what if his clothes catch fire and he falls on the bomb or something or the room catches fire? Does your scenario exist in some mathematical environment with no physical laws or matter present? If so is it relevant ot the real world?

Do you think that there must be some implicit, maximally specific context within which every hypothetical example takes place? If I say "suppose, hypothetically, you are in a car accident..." do you think that the hypothetical car has to have a color?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Now you are getting the idea !! At last a scenario where it makes sense to light the fuse. Mind you how plausible is it compared to my first one? Are you claiming it to be just as likely as mine? Surely not.

No, far less likely. How many of these low likelihood scenarios do I need to keep pace with your likely ones?

Imagine this. We are in the same hotel lobby. Imagine that a man is lighting a cigarette with a match. A thirsty lion is ambling across the floor, his bushy tail dragging behind him on the ground. It just so happens that if the lion continues along his trajectory, he will startle the man into dropping his match onto the fuse. Further, his tail will bridge the gap between the fuse and the bomb, allowing the fire to cross. But if I now light the fuse, the sprinkler will trigger, and will start to fill the fountain (imagine there is a fountain in the lobby, if you will). The thirsty lion will then divert course to get a drink, the man will never drop his match, and all is well.

RATING: not too difficult to imagine, but not very likely.

Originally posted by LemonJello
So you think that in Dr's first example -- basically we light an unconnected fuse; that trips the overhead water sprinklers; the water sprinklers douse the bomb with water -- you think that represents a greater risk of detonation than if the fuse is not lit to begin with? What is it about impinging water that makes the bomb more likely to detonate?

Doh! No No No. If I light the fuse the sprinkler system may or may not come on. Dr Scribbles has had to admit a risk in lighting the fuse to then say that he has prevented anything. If you want to stop someone winning an accumalator better to spike the first horse than the last one because if you fail with the first horse you get other chances. Eliminating risk as source is always more efficient. Not lighting the fuse is the best option. You need to do some risk assessment training

I thought you guys understood probability?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Doh! No No No. If I light the fuse the sprinkler system may or may not come on. Dr Scribbles has had to admit a risk in lighting the fuse to then say that he has prevented anything. If you want to stop someone winning an accumalator better to spike the first horse than the last one because if you fail with the first horse you get other chances. Eli ...[text shortened]... . You need to do some risk assessment training

I thought you guys understood probability?

Read my edit. At first, I thought the example was that the sprinkler douses the bomb, but it only seems to read that it douses the fuse. Still, that you continually claim that such an example raises the probability of detonation is question begging, ain't it?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Read my edit. At first, I thought the example was that the sprinkler douses the bomb, but it only seems to read that it douses the fuse.

Come on, don't steal my ideas. That was going to be my next scenario, until knightmeister changed the rules on me. Now I'll have to imagine something else if we ever revert to the original rules, since you have already imagined that one.