Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well it's pretty obviously false. Thousands of things can go wrong for a person in any given second but they don't.For example: I'm typing on a laptop, it could explode but it hasn't. I'm sitting on a chair, it could collapse but it hasn't. I'm breathing air, there could be a gas leak killing me but there isn't. My house is directly under the flight path of a nearby airport, there is a very real possibility that part of one of the planes could fall off, smash through the ceiling and kill me, but that hasn't happened.
Your mentioning single events which could happen missing the entire point, why not just say "the sun could blow up and kill us all but it hasn´t".
When various unlikely events occur in a row to create really chaotic situations, that´s what I call sod´s law.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Your mentioning single events which could happen missing the entire point, why not just say "the sun could blow up and kill us all but it hasn´t".When various unlikely events occur in a row to create really chaotic situations, that´s what I call sod´s law.
It's not a law though. It's just saying "Sometimes, but not regularly and not in reliable and predictable patterns, things subjectively perceived as "bad" happen, perhaps even in humorous way"
Originally posted by Bicnarok
I know, but sometimes the possibility of a string of events happening in a certain way, time and order to cause an effect seems very unlickly.
And they are, but you forget that there's a whole world of people out there for things to happen to. If an string of events have a one in a billion chance of happening to a person each day it will happen between six and seven times every day.
Wildly unlikely things happen all the time simply because of the sheer numbers of things that happen.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And they are, but you forget that there's a whole world of people out there for things to happen to. If an string of events have a one in a billion chance of happening to a person each day it will happen between six and seven times every day.Wildly unlikely things happen all the time simply because of the sheer numbers of things that happen.
that´s a good point so what your saying is, because there are so many factors and possibilites of events that can happen, odd events which may seem uncoincidental are bound to happen now and again.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And they are, but you forget that there's a whole world of people out there for things to happen to. If an string of events have a one in a billion chance of happening to a person each day it will happen between six and seven times every day.Wildly unlikely things happen all the time simply because of the sheer numbers of things that happen.
actually, all outcomes, if you go back far enough, have improbably low odds of occuring
for instance, that I came to work today has low odds, if we add in the decisions I made to get coffee, what I wore, what bus I took, the odds get much lower, if we then add in the fact I saw a car flipped over (actually happened) or what time I woke up, what time I went to sleep, etc, we can express these odds in terms of being so low, it is impossible I ever got to work today.
I'm not disagreeing, just sort of pointing out that the odds of something occuring are not really a good measure of if something will occur.
Originally posted by inimalist
actually, all outcomes, if you go back far enough, have improbably low odds of occuringfor instance, that I came to work today has low odds, if we add in the decisions I made to get coffee, what I wore, what bus I took, the odds get much lower, if we then add in the fact I saw a car flipped over (actually happened) or what time I woke up, what time I went to sleep, etc, we can express these odds in terms of being so low, it is impossible I ever got to work today.
I'm not disagreeing, just sort of pointing out that the odds of something occuring are not really a good measure of if something will occur.
Similar to the "bomb on the plain" odds argument. which goes something like this "The chance of a bomb being on a plane is a million to one, so if you take your own bomb on board the chances are multiplied giving you less chance of being blown up by some nut. This is of course silly, if there´s a bomb on board, there is a bomb on board and you gonna get blown up now matter how many of your own bombs you bring on board."
Originally posted by inimalistBut most of those events aren't random, so they're not really uo tot he the odds, no entirely anyway.
actually, all outcomes, if you go back far enough, have improbably low odds of occuringfor instance, that I came to work today has low odds, if we add in the decisions I made to get coffee, what I wore, what bus I took, the odds get much lower, if we then add in the fact I saw a car flipped over (actually happened) or what time I woke up, what time I went to sleep, etc, we can express these odds in terms of being so low, it is impossible I ever got to work today.
I'm not disagreeing, just sort of pointing out that the odds of something occuring are not really a good measure of if something will occur.
Originally posted by inimalist
actually, all outcomes, if you go back far enough, have improbably low odds of occuringfor instance, that I came to work today has low odds, if we add in the decisions I made to get coffee, what I wore, what bus I took, the odds get much lower, if we then add in the fact I saw a car flipped over (actually happened) or what time I woke up, what time I went to sleep, etc, we can express these odds in terms of being so low, it is impossible I ever got to work today.
I'm not disagreeing, just sort of pointing out that the odds of something occuring are not really a good measure of if something will occur.
Those aren't related decisions. Determining the odds of you getting to work only requires adding up the odds of all the things that would stop you. We could ignore the odds of you making coffee and just focus on the odds of the coffee sending you to the hospital.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Similar to the "bomb on the plain" odds argument. which goes something like this "The chance of a bomb being on a plane is a million to one, so if you take your own bomb on board the chances are multiplied giving you less chance of being blown up by some nut. This is of course silly, if there´s a bomb on board, there is a bomb on board and you gonna get blown up now matter how many of your own bombs you bring on board."
thats not quite true. If you bring a bomb onto a plane, the odds there is a bomb on the plane are 1. as in a 1 to 1 chance. The odds a terrorist has brought a bomb onto the plane are unchanged, unless you define yourself as a terrorist.
also, that example changes what the event we are measuring probability for is. At first, you talk in terms of "the probability of a bomb being on the plane", at the end, you are talking about "the probability of being blown up by a bomb on the plabe", which is, by definition, less probable than just the bomb being there in the first place
Originally posted by 753
But most of those events aren't random, so they're not really uo tot he the odds, no entirely anyway.
what would be "random" in the real world?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Those aren't related decisions. Determining the odds of you getting to work only requires adding up the odds of all the things that would stop you. We could ignore the odds of you making coffee and just focus on the odds of the coffee sending you to the hospital.
but the odds of whether I go to work, or whether coffee will send me to the hospital, in reality, are contingent on many other things. Odds and statistical probabilities generally are in terms of "holding all other variables constant", however, in reality, it is impossible to hold variables constant.
how sick coffee makes me feel will depend on, for instance, how much coffee or other caffine I've had that day, the odds of me getting to work depend directly on the odds of me going to sleep early enough the previous day, which is not directly related to variables involved in the process of getting to work. Statistical probability seeks to decontextualize probability from these real world considerations.
Originally posted by inimalistHow Dr. Manhattanish of you.
actually, all outcomes, if you go back far enough, have improbably low odds of occuring
for instance, that I came to work today has low odds, if we add in the decisions I made to get coffee, what I wore, what bus I took, the odds get much lower, if we then add in the fact I saw a car flipped over (actually happened) or what time I woke up, what time I went to sleep, etc, we can express these odds in terms of being so low, it is impossible I ever got to work today.I believe that at the quantum level, that's all we have: calculations of probability.I'm not disagreeing, just sort of pointing out that the odds of something occuring are not really a good measure of if something will occur.
Originally posted by 753
As far as we know, a lot. Determinism, predeterminism, superdeterminism etc. have never been proven.
ok, I'm talking more about causality though
and you can generate odds for things that aren't random. The entirety of psychology is based on generating p-values for actions that we assume don't just vary randomly, but based on our experimental manipulations.
My point was that there probabilities rarely translate into the real world, because you can't control all of the confounding variables in the real world, and, going back far enough, you can introduce enough variables into the causality of "why" any event occured, such that the probability of that event having happened, if determined prior to the subsequent chain of actions, would seem to be impossibly low (the odds of you, ending up in the EXACT physical/social/demographic situation you are in at this moment, if calculated prior to your birth, would appear impossible, and certainly not worth betting on. The caveat being, so would every other possible outcome. Essentially, I'm saying that you can reduce certainty by introducing potential variables)
Originally posted by Mindship
I believe that at the quantum level, that's all we have: calculations of probability.
in terms of all science, that is all we really have. Hypothesis testing itself is based on what are called "p-values", which tell you how likely your results are under a null hypothesis.
eg: you want to see if a drug makes you stronger. Your null hypothesis would be "there is 0 effect from the drug". You run the test, and you see how probable it is that your results match the null, in the form of a "p-value". The lower the p-value, the less likely your results conform to the null, and the more likely, in this case, the drug makes you stronger.
So if calculations of probability...
Originally posted by inimalist(which I agree with) and...
in terms of all science...is all we really have.
Originally posted by inimalist...then is science using poor measurement? I'm sure that's not what you mean.
...the odds of something occuring are not really a good measure of if something will occur.
Originally posted by inimalistI get what you're saying, that since there are millions of possible outcomes for any of these events, the chances of any of them happening is small and the chance of a string of them happening in the particular way that they do is even smaller. But my point was that these strings aren't as improbable as they may seem because the individual happenings aren't coin tosses, they are skewed toward certain outcomes. A person born to middle class parents has much more chances of ending up in the middle class as an adult for instance.
ok, I'm talking more about causality thoughand you can generate odds for things that aren't random. The entirety of psychology is based on generating p-values for actions that we assume don't just vary randomly, but based on our experimental manipulations.
My point was that there probabilities rarely translate into the real world, because you can't control all of the confounding variables in the real world, and, going back far enough, you can introduce enough variables into the causality of "why" any event occured, such that the probability of that event having happened, if determined prior to the subsequent chain of actions, would seem to be impossibly low (the odds of you, ending up in the EXACT physical/social/demographic situation you are in at this moment, if calculated prior to your birth, would appear impossible, and certainly not worth betting on. The caveat being, so would every other possible outcome. Essentially, I'm saying that you can reduce certainty by introducing potential variables)
in terms of all science, that is all we really have. Hypothesis testing itself is based on what are called "p-values", which tell you how likely your results are under a null hypothesis.
eg: you want to see if a drug makes you stronger. Your null hypothesis would be "there is 0 effect from the drug". You run the test, and you see how probable it is that your results match the null, in the form of a "p-value". The lower the p-value, the less likely your results conform to the null, and the more likely, in this case, the drug makes you stronger.
Originally posted by 753
I get what you're saying, that since there are millions of possible outcomes for any of these events, the chances of any of them happening is small and the chance of a string of them happening in the particular way that they do is even smaller. But my point was that these strings aren't as improbable as they may seem because the individual happenings aren't coin tosses, they are skewed toward certain outcomes. A person born to middle class parents has much more chances of ending up in the middle class as an adult for instance.
actually, ya, thats exactly the bigger point I was trying to make.
It is, according to statistical probability, more likely that a middle class child will be a middle class adult, when compared to poor kids. However, for any particular instance of a middle class child, the stats don't mean that they will become middle class, and we can't infer that their status as middle class as a child is the reason they became middle class. I'm sure you already know all of this though, lol 🙂.
I guess my other point was about how it is really useless to try and say this or that even was imporbable, in terms of the real world, because the context in which something happened makes the probability essentially 1. Like, the "me going to work", the probability ranges from impossible to assured depending on where we start calculating probability from and what we consider as variables in the model. /ramble... lol
Thought this was pertinent.