How to deduce Murphy's law through logic...

[petrushka.googol]

Murphy's law states that "If anything will go wrong it will.".

 

My rationale for the same is as follows :

 

Argument 1 : For anything to go wrong it must have a finite probability.

 

Argument 2 : (follows from argument 1) - A finite probability however small is greater than zero.

 

Argument 3 : (corollary of argument 2) - If anything is impossible it has zero probability.

 

Argument 4 : If anything goes wrong it is right in an inverted frame of reference . (anti universe).

 

Argument 5 : That which can be measured and verifiable is real.

 

Conclusion : (From 1 to 5) : Something can go wrong if it is destined to (at least once in the history of the universe since it can exist in the right and wrong states. It is like quantum superposition and the net observed state depends on which is the observed state. Both right and wrong states exist and the wrong state will be observed by some observer at some point in time.) This is not completely impossible and hence feasible.(from argument 1,2,3). My modification to the postulate would be "If something can go wrong it will go wrong at least some times (if not always)..(from all the arguments presented above).

Edited January 29, 2014 by petrushka.googol

[swansont]

Or, it's simply failed logic employing selection bias. You remember when things go wrong because it's vivid, and forget when things go right. IOW, Murphy's Law isn't actually true.

[hoola]

I think the topic of "something going wrong" is a basic tenet of the evolutionary process. If things in general weren't going wrong on a small scale on a continuous basis, and a large scale on an intermittent basis, would early life on earth have evolved to higher life forms? Evolution only happens when life is made uncomfortable enough to weed out those individuals without the necessary mutations to survive a particular change in the enviornment, as compared to other individuals that perish as a result of not having that adaptability. So, I see an intellectual basis of your analysis of your proposal, but that the attendant effects of "murphy law" is in effect, the tough love of the unseen hand of evolution. In the early bacteria the changes were more about changes in sea salinity, food availability, sunlight or other energy requirements. We still have the same principles of enviornmental stressors affecting us to adapt. We now have the intellectual capability of hanging a label on a portion of the process, this "murphy's law", which is a sub-set of the forces of evolution. This is how I can accept all the terrible things that happen in the world to us humans, if the world wasn't a terrible place, I would still be sitting in a warm tidal pool happily digesting complex organic molecules as a blue-green algae...instead of sitting here and writing about my lousy luck with recent endeavors (trying to buy a house out of state) being not only understandable, but a necessary component to the development of sentience on this planet, or perhaps any planet. So, is murphys law a universal law affecting the entire universe? Since other parameters such as particle masses and gravity seems to be the same everywhere, it is logical to think that anywhere higher life exists, it came about as primitive life having a "sweet spot" planet with enough stressors to cause evolution, but not so much as to cause extinction. So, this "murphy's law" can only described by beings subject to it's loving bloody hand....edd

[petrushka.googol]

My conclusion should be re-defined as follows: (after some contemplation and sincere reflection)

 

Mathematically if something can go wrong we MAY not be sure that it will go wrong but we can at least be certain that it will not be right ALL of the time which iteratively implies that the first condition although not explicit is in fact implicit by its very definition. Simply stated we cannot state the first condition has a probability of zero which means it could occur at some point of time as an event. So the wrong event occurs at the right time if you get the drift (pun intended).

[Olinguito]

If something can go wrong, it means that the probability of it going wrong is greater than zero. If something will go wrong, it means that the probability of it going wrong is equal to one. [latex]\mathrm{P(go\ wrong)>0\ \not\Rightarrow\ P(go\ wrong)=1}[/latex].

[swansont]

If something can go wrong, it means that the probability of it going wrong is greater than zero. If something will go wrong, it means that the probability of it going wrong is equal to one. [latex]\mathrm{P(go\ wrong)>0\ \not\Rightarrow\ P(go\ wrong)=1}[/latex].

 

So if P>0 then P=1. It's a boolean system, and patently absurd of you take it at its logical face value.

[Olinguito]

 

So if P>0 then P=1.

 

That’s the assertion of Murphy’s law, which is clearly not true.

[petrushka.googol]

 

So if P>0 then P=1. It's a boolean system, and patently absurd of you take it at its logical face value.

 

I was thinking how this could be converted into an algorithm (however absurd that may sound) and arrived at the following code :

 

string x;

x = "I imitate Archimedes";

int j = 0;

while (!(IsNotCertain(x)))

{

x = Console.Readline(x);

j+=1;

if (j>999)

{

Console.Writeline("Data sample proves inconclusive");

break;

}

}

private bool IsNotCertain(string x)

{

bool a = false;

if ((P(x) * RND(x)==0) //collapse of the wave function aka Schrodingers wave function

{

a = true;

}

return a;

}

[John Cuthber]

 

That’s the assertion of Murphy’s law, which is clearly not true.

 

I'm not sure the two Ps are equivalent there.

One is (tacitly) the probability in some given interval of time, the other is the probability summed over all time.

If it can go wrong (say there's a 1 % chance per week) then eventually it will go wrong.

If it hasn't gone wrong yet, you have not waited long enough.

Empirically, it would take an infinite time to show that Murphy's law is false.

[swansont]

 

 

Empirically, it would take an infinite time to show that Murphy's law is false.

 

It depends on how you interpret it. Does the "Law" apply only over an extended time, or is it applied to individual events. Every time I drive somewhere, one of the things that could go wrong is that I get a flat tire. I don't get a flat tire on a trip, then Murphy's law is wrong if it applies to events.

 

If it only applies over an extended time it becomes a tautology, so of what value is it? (That's rhetorical. At its core Murphy's law is humor rather than science)

[John Cuthber]

Are there similar discussions about Mick's observation - Even if it can't go wrong, it will?

And how about Fitzpatrick's corollary - Murphy was an optimist?

 

A demonstration of Mick's observation is provided by the Titanic.

It was unsinkable- it sank; or the German Enigma coding machine which was uncrackable- it was cracked.

 

The ideas all serve to remind people that even when you are sure something can't go wrong, it's sometimes worth having a back up plan in case it does.

 

So yes, it does have value.

Edited February 2, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Externet]

Any post attempting how to deduce Murphy's law through logic will fail. -Corollary 6713-

 

 

These are by bibles...

[petrushka.googol]

Are there similar discussions about Mick's observation - Even if it can't go wrong, it will?

And how about Fitzpatrick's corollary - Murphy was an optimist?

 

A demonstration of Mick's observation is provided by the Titanic.

It was unsinkable- it sank; or the German Enigma coding machine which was uncrackable- it was cracked.

 

The ideas all serve to remind people that even when you are sure something can't go wrong, it's sometimes worth having a back up plan in case it does.

 

So yes, it does have value.

 

How about looking at failure from a different perspective.

 

We all know that a perfect machine (with 100% efficiency) is impossible in our Universe. (due to increasing entropy).

 

How then can a machine (however it is constructed) never fail.

 

Maybe the time required to verify that may be beyond the reach of a human life span...may be exponential..but not completely impossible.

 

Quote : Napoleon -> Impossible is a word in the dictionary of fools...

[ydoaPs]

Murphy's law states that "If anything will go wrong it will.".

Two things: if that's what you're trying to prove, it's a tautology. It's also not Murphy's 'Law'.

 

Murphy's 'Law' states that whatever can go wrong will. So, it takes the form of (∀x)(⋄Wx⊃Wx). That is, for all events, if it is possible that the event will go wrong, then it is the case that the event will go wrong. If you are trying to prove Murphy's Law, that's the thing you're shooting for.

 

 

My rationale for the same is as follows :

 

Argument 1 : For anything to go wrong it must have a finite probability.

 

Argument 2 : (follows from argument 1) - A finite probability however small is greater than zero.

Does not follow. However, it is the case that for something to happen, it must have a non-zero probability.

 

Argument 3 : (corollary of argument 2) - If anything is impossible it has zero probability.

Yep.

 

Argument 4 : If anything goes wrong it is right in an inverted frame of reference . (anti universe).

That's unintelligible nonsense.

 

 

Argument 5 : That which can be measured and verifiable is real.

That's not actually true.

 

Conclusion : (From 1 to 5) : Something can go wrong if it is destined to (at least once in the history of the universe since it can exist in the right and wrong states. It is like quantum superposition and the net observed state depends on which is the observed state. Both right and wrong states exist and the wrong state will be observed by some observer at some point in time.) This is not completely impossible and hence feasible.(from argument 1,2,3). My modification to the postulate would be "If something can go wrong it will go wrong at least some times (if not always)..(from all the arguments presented above).

This is also nonsense, and doesn't follow from anything even given all of your 'arguments' above.

[petrushka.googol]

Two things: if that's what you're trying to prove, it's a tautology. It's also not Murphy's 'Law'.

 

Murphy's 'Law' states that whatever can go wrong will. So, it takes the form of (∀x)(⋄Wx⊃Wx). That is, for all events, if it is possible that the event will go wrong, then it is the case that the event will go wrong. If you are trying to prove Murphy's Law, that's the thing you're shooting for.

 

 

 

Does not follow. However, it is the case that for something to happen, it must have a non-zero probability.

 

 

Yep.

 

 

That's unintelligible nonsense.

 

 

 

That's not actually true.

 

 

This is also nonsense, and doesn't follow from anything even given all of your 'arguments' above.

 

I thank you for your analysis.

 

I am not acquainted with formal mathematical symbolism but the gist of my argument (and other posts (2) above) is as follows :

1) If something can be true, it is not necessarily always false.

2) If something can be false, it is not necessarily always true.

3) Something that can be true, cannot be assumed to be false unless proven otherwise.

By superposing 1,2,3 you arrive at an assertion.

 

Please read my other 2 posts above and comment if you wish.

The idea here is to visualize whether Murphy's Law can be deduced through logical analysis and not treated as an axiom.

[J.C.MacSwell]

In a clockwork Universe (as far as we know we are in a Universe that is, at it's roots, a Quantum one, but I digress...) anything that could go wrong, must go wrong.

 

Fairly easy to deduce anything you want logically, if you use the "right" set of assumptions.

Edited February 4, 2014 by J.C.MacSwell

[ydoaPs]

I thank you for your analysis.

 

I am not acquainted with formal mathematical symbolism but the gist of my argument (and other posts (2) above) is as follows :

1) If something can be true, it is not necessarily always false.

2) If something can be false, it is not necessarily always true.

3) Something that can be true, cannot be assumed to be false unless proven otherwise.

By superposing 1,2,3 you arrive at an assertion.

 

Please read my other 2 posts above and comment if you wish.

The idea here is to visualize whether Murphy's Law can be deduced through logical analysis and not treated as an axiom.

Your third point is false, and I'm not sure what 'superposing' is, but it's not a valid rule of inference.