Probability
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2013, 11:47 PM
RE: Probability
(21-03-2013 03:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(21-03-2013 01:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But if this is the definition you want to use, then there has never been an observed miracle. Which means that until one is observed, it is irrational and illogical to say that they exist/occur.

Extra terrestrial life has never been observed, is it irrational and illogical to say they exist? Until very recently we hadn't observed a Higgs boson. Was it irrational and illogical to spend 10 billion dollars to build an apparatus in the hope that we would observe it?

Your position that it is illogical and irrational to believe something that's never been observed is a bit ridiculous. Obviously you must meant something else.
No it's not irrational because we already have proof life exists, and understanding that it's largely electromagnetic phenomenon made of the most common elements in the Universe.. Hence we know life already exists and thus is possible. It's not even a logical leap, and we find organic compounds in nebulae and meteorites. The carbon atom is quite the little critter being able to form those long molecular chains with the potentiality of giving emergence to life. And the Higg's was based on evidence and so is life.. Science doesn't waste its time on absolute negatives that have no means to ever be addressed. So yes it was worth 10 billion because we didn't just spend it looking for the Higgs, we got a lot more out of that than just the Higgs. And when we are on our quantum computers over a quantum network, I dare say the money spent would have been more than worth it. Chasing after Santa Clause however would not be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheJackal's post
22-03-2013, 04:25 AM
RE: Probability
(21-03-2013 11:18 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(21-03-2013 09:39 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The initial probabilities were assumed using the principle of indifference.

Wikipedia Wrote:The principle of indifference is meaningless under the frequency interpretation of probability, in which probabilities are relative frequencies rather than degrees of belief in uncertain propositions, conditional upon a state of information.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_indifference

Wikipedia Wrote:Frequentist probability or frequentism is the standard interpretation of probability; it defines an event's probability as the limit of its relative frequency in a large number of trials.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_probability

The three marble example is not an example of frequency probability but rather it is an example of classical probability. Classical probability, admittedly, has some serious flaws. However, those flaws do not manifest themselves in the simple 3 marble example.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 04:27 AM
RE: Probability
(21-03-2013 10:28 PM)Julius Wrote:  
(21-03-2013 09:34 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  And you have a mathematical reason to suspect that all the marbles in the bin are white. Each time you draw a white marble, without ever drawing a non white marble, the number of possible ways non-white marbles could have been in the bin decreases.
Not if there are an infinite number of marbles. Then, no matter how many marbles you draw, all the probabilities remain the same.

You are correct. Infinity is a special case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 04:34 AM
Re: Probability
And we digress back to bullshit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 04:49 AM
Re: Probability
I didn't say it was illogical to look, only illogical to believe in the existence of either without observations from which to draw that conclusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 04:52 AM
Re: Probability
This is still wrong. You have no idea what is in the bin and can't say anything meaningful about it through statistics.

You have no defense of your bullshit miracle proposition so you try and muddy the water with bullshit information and opinions on statistics? You'll need to find some ignorant of statistics to fall into that trap of idiocy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 05:04 AM
RE: Probability
(22-03-2013 04:52 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  This is still wrong. You have no idea what is in the bin and can't say anything meaningful about it through statistics.

Each time you draw a marble you learn something new about the bin. Knowing there is one less way the bin can contain non-white marbles is not meaningless information. That information allows you to say something about a unknown probability. That information allows you to say the unknown probability is moving closer to 1 or closer to 0.

This is elementary, I'm surprised there is so much dispute.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 05:43 AM
Re: Probability
Your understanding is of an elementary school level. You are making the same mistake as a creationist who refers to humans as similar to computers and dna as bits of information in a line of code. It is both a gross oversimplification and a gross misunderstanding.

Still no defense of your attempt to connect BS statistics to your BS example of a miracle?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
22-03-2013, 08:06 AM
RE: Probability
(22-03-2013 04:25 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(21-03-2013 11:18 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_indifference

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_probability

The three marble example is not an example of frequency probability but rather it is an example of classical probability. Classical probability, admittedly, has some serious flaws. However, those flaws do not manifest themselves in the simple 3 marble example.
If you are referring to the probability of life, it's meaningless. Especially in dealing with infinite times scales, and infinite vastness of existence.. This Universe in itself could simply just be 1 of an infinite number of other universes to where life did arise. In these circumstances, probability becomes utterly meaningless and not something you can possibly measure, and even becomes inevitable consequence of the system. And dealing with chaotic systems to which are inherently unpredictable on large scales and times scales, probability arguments again really have no real world relevancy here.. Probability arguments are best used in where predictability is within predictable systems and situations such as particle physics in nuclear engineering.. But if anyone tries to use the probability argument against the probability of life, it only shows how much bs arm chair pseudoscience and mathematics they can make up and put into meaningless argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 10:32 AM
RE: Probability
(22-03-2013 04:25 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The three marble example is not an example of frequency probability but rather it is an example of classical probability.
You don't say.

(22-03-2013 04:25 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Classical probability, admittedly, has some serious flaws. However, those flaws do not manifest themselves in the simple 3 marble example.
Oh, I'm sorry, I was under the impression that my last post showed that the opposite is true. My bad. Rolleyes

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: