1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterSigh. I'll be back when you decide to answer the free will question.
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?
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI see now your intended progression of ideas, and I am sorry to have jumped the gun. It will still be a good example, I daresay (oh, okay, but I see maybe not in keeping with the rules of the game).
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.
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioYou drug me into this! You should at least stick around for the end of the game.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That wavy line above is my towel. I've thrown it in. This is gone beyond
the absurdity threshold for me.
Nemesio
To keep you busy, I nominate you to be the judge, to keep the levels of difficulty and likelihood of our imagined scenarios in balance.
Originally posted by bbarrNow, 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.BARR
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 t ...[text shortened]... cenarios you will have all the information you need to understand your most fundamental error.
Ah...but did you notice the difference in quality and plausibility of the scenario. I would suggest sneaking men with fireworks in the dark to be less plausible than an inadvertent fire leading to an explosion.
Your argument is flawed because if you said it's better to not walk into a petrol station with a lighted match ( it's been known) I could argue that I could come up with loads of bizzare scenarios where doing this would be preventative of an explosion and they would equal in number any scenarios that you came up with that would suggest that doing this was a bad idea. But would that prove anything? Of course not. One could still argue that the scenarios I came up with would be far less plausible than yours. Thus the quality of the scenario is important not the quantity.
I have no doubt Dr Scribbles could go on forever , but he;s already at the wicked witch stage whereas I'm just talking about bombs falling over and fires. See the difference already?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWatch out for the wicked witch if you go near a wood!
I'm going to take a walk to get my creative juices flowing. Don't think I'm throwing in the towel. I'll be back for another round shortly. It's your turn in the meantime. Send it to Nemesio via PM, like a sealed move, if you wish.
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo I don't think that the sprinkler going off raises the probability of the bomb going off. It lowers it infact. But in order to get to the point of the sprinkler dousing the fuse then the fuse has to be lit.
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?
All he is doing is creating a risk and then eliminating it again. If he did it my way he would just not create the risk in the first place. I would like him to say hat risk he thinks he is eliminating by setting the sprinklers off. If he has no answer then it's a pointless neutral scenario.
It's a bit like saying I 'll walk into a petrol station with a flame thrower on , that way the police will arrest me and eliminate the risk of an explosion from it. This proves that it's better to walk into a petrol station with a flame thrower on than just buy some chocolate instead?
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo, you didn't. You merely reiterated that which was in need of explanation. Please refer to my post of 25 Apr '07 15:52, above. That is the post you need to respond to.
I did. All you have to do guys is admit that wicked witches are less likely and plausible than accidental fires , not too much to ask ?
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNo, seriously, this is now absurd. I've painstakingly explained with little
You drug me into this! You should at least stick around for the end of the game.
diagrams and everything why what he is asserting is wrong. You have,
bbarr has, lemonjello has, even dottewell, starrman and twhitehead have chimed in.
Everyone has said, 'Hey KM, look at this aspect of your reasoning,' and he
invariably goes, 'No, no, no, you guys don't understand,' and we go,
'Yes, we understand but what you are saying has the following implications,
consider them,' and he goes, ' No, no, no, you guys don't understand.'
And the dance continues. Either he has not stopped to review what we
bother to take the time to write (otherwise he would understand the error
of his thinking) or he is incapable of understanding it.
Either way, I'm out.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioAll right, well, I'll let you know who wins. I have a pretty good imagination, so I like my chances.
No, seriously, this is now absurd. I've painstakingly explained with little
diagrams and everything why what he is asserting is wrong. You have,
bbarr has, lemonjello has, even dottewell and twhitehead have chimed in.
Everyone has said, 'Hey KM, look at this aspect of your reasoning,' and he
invariably goes, 'No, no, no, you guys don't understand,' and ...[text shortened]... inking) or he is incapable of understanding it.
Either way, I'm out.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterOK, I'm going to have some fun with these questions.
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.
So you think it probable that barrs scenario exists floating in space or something? -KM
Highly probable. There's much more space than there is planetary atmosphere.
You think it impossible that there may be something ignitable around? -KM
Well, there was that fuse thing. Then again, bbarr did not say whether the fuse was frozen or not, so I cannot tell. Perhaps some mischievous saboteur did it without his knowledge.
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterSomebody shoot me. Please.
No I don't think that the sprinkler going off raises the probability of the bomb going off. It lowers it infact. But in order to get to the point of the sprinkler dousing the fuse then the fuse has to be lit.
All he is doing is creating a risk and then eliminating it again.
The whole point of the game was that you come up with a hypothetical under which the lighting of the unconnected fuse would, if anything, make detonation more probable; then Scribs goes and comes up with a hypothetical under which the lighting of the unconnected fuse would, if anything, have the opposite effect.
So, when you then object on merely the grounds that Scribs' example first posits the lighting of the unconnected fuse (in the sense that the fuse is first lit; then the sprinkler is activated; etc.); that sort of makes you look like an idiot, doesn't it? After all, Scribs is just playing by the rules here. You seem to have just admitted that Scribs' first example was successful in your own estimation.