Probability, Options, and Determination...

[studiot]

You claim to have had philosophy training in logical thinking.

 

But this

 

 

Scott Mayer

studiot mentions 'death' as a possibility. How might we represent this? I'd first have to distinguish between at least two kinds of death: one where the person dies indeterminately (like some unpredictable heart attack), one where the person dies determinately (like someone adding an additional premise of some third person in the picture or themselves as motivators) These last ones cannot count as I have not defined an extra person and have predefined the person as intending to reach the 'goal', so suicide would not be an allowed possible motive affecting the person. What's left is indeterminate and incommensurate without having specific information about this arbitrary person. Thus this removes "death" as a factor of assigning values

 

and this

 

 

Scott Mayer

Elements involved (brainstorm)

Origin location (left side in the diagram)

End location labeled "goal" (right side of diagram)

the mapped rout of the road from origin to goal as illustrated

a Person

a direction towards the goal

a T-intersection going into loop

a T-intersection going out loop

A "left" direction

a "right" direction

the perspective from the position of beginning of Person

the perspective form the position of beginning of our perspective

the perspective from the position of the first T-intersection of Person

the perspective from the position of the first T-intersection of our perspective

the perspective from the position of the second T-intersection of Person

the perspective from the position of the second T-intersection of our perspective

the perspective form the position of end of Person

the perspective form the position of end of our perspective

velocity or rate of Person

 

are prime examples of this

 

 

Scott Mayer

While I don't mind including other factors like death or other points that might be related, this is the first point you actually made that at least doesn't break the limitations of the givens since it involve the 'person' I defined in it. But it appears that you're purposely more interested in diluting my point like an attorney might burden their opposition by dumping an unusual excess of trivial paper work to hide the evidence like a needle in a haystack.

 

I believe the phrase is 'Hoist your your own petard'.

 

Whilst you steadfastly ignore my actual point,

 

You are the one who introduced probability in relation to both the Monty Hall problem and quantum mechanics.

 

But the problem is you do not understand probability so your reasononing is flawed.

 

I said your example was a poor one to use but you insisted on using it so I am trying to make do with it.

 

The above analysis make no sense. Here is my version and I make no claims that it is perfect, I may have forgotten something vital.

 

Your traveller approaches the junction for the first time in history.

As a result you have no information about the probabilities as to which way she will turn.

So your best estimate is equal probabilities.

But you also know that people drop dead and let us say the probability is 0.2.

 

So your probabilities are now 0.4 + 0.4 + 0.2 = 1

 

This is very important because these are known as prior or anterior probabilities.

In this case they are subjective prior probabilities.

There are also objective prior probabilities.

Prior probabilities are assigned before the beginning of the event and are set on the basis of the best known information at that time.

Thus they may not be 'truth' , whatever that means.

 

The crux of the Monty Hall problem is what happens next.

 

The traveller turns say left and the probabilities are now changed as a result of better infomation.

This is also the key theorem that Bayes introduced in the early 1700s and Laplace developed in the late 1700s.

 

The probabilities are now

 

P(turn left) = 1

P(turn right) = 0

P(drop dead) = 0

 

But this cannot occur until after the event.

 

But there is still more about probability.

 

What does the probability P(event) = 1 mean particular in the case of future events, which is after all the reason for doing all this?

 

Well there are several cases and each has a different meaning.

 

If we can take our prior probabilities to be correct then we call them a priori probabilities (Laplace was french) and P(E) = 1 means that the event will (=must always )occur.

 

If our prior probabilities are objectively acquired P(E) = 1 says that the event has always occurred in the past but does not mean that it will always (or ever) occur in the future.

 

If our prior probabilities are subjective then P(E)=1 then it means that we think the event will occur in the future, but again does not imply that it will.

 

 

As I said probability gets complicated as you go deeper.

 

Finally if there is any more mud slinging you will need to find a new discussion partner.

Edited October 9, 2015 by studiot

[Scott Mayers]

You claim to have had philosophy training in logical thinking.

 

But this

 

 

and this

 

 

are prime examples of this

 

 

I believe the phrase is 'Hoist your your own petard'.

 

 

Whilst you steadfastly ignore my actual point,

 

You are the one who introduced probability in relation to both the Monty Hall problem and quantum mechanics.

 

But the problem is you do not understand probability so your reasononing is flawed.

 

First off, I haven't a clue of your interpretation on me other than that you'd likely have a distaste for me as person from my intro thread and my comments against the administrations use of 'dunce-capping'. I notice that even the 'reputation' factors here are being applied against me in such a similar way to discredit me without fair arguments.

 

As to your comments in what I quote above, I haven't a damn clue what your "actual point" is. I DID NOT introduce probability in relation to the Monty Hall problem nor quantum mechanics. I CLEARLY spoke to the fact to external motive because I was being harassed as having an ulterior trash theory of which I never even proposed in the slightest. Ignore any reference to Monty Hall or QM as it obviously appears to affect you emotionally. No doubt you already pose a stance and assume that I have something against some internal pride for something unspoken here.

 

You also declare without proof that I have some lack of ability to understand probability to which you have zero justification. And thus you are clearly propping up some phony misrepresentation of me. [A Scarecrow]

 

Either focus on this particular concern for the OP I present or go away. I'm not responding to your further questions on Monty Hall or other issues I have NOT raised. If and when I feel this is necessary, it will be a separate thread. I only mentioned it as an aside note due to the harassing interest of those accusing me of some hidden conspiracy against you.

[Reg Prescott]

I haven't been following this thread closely, but the following caught my eye...

 

First off, I haven't a clue of your interpretation on me other than that you'd likely have a distaste for me as person from my intro thread and my comments against the administrations use of 'dunce-capping'. I notice that even the 'reputation' factors here are being applied against me in such a similar way to discredit me without fair arguments.

 

Yes, Scott, precisely the same thing has been happening to me in my own thread. I only joined the site two or three weeks ago, eager to learn and share with others, and I don't recall being abusive to anyone. This hasn't stopped other members -- the old hands, I assume -- from engaging in an assassination-of-reputation campaign, hammering away ecstatically at their "-1" keys. I believe my "reputation" now hovers around the -20 mark, challenging Stalin and Mao for baddest ass on the planet.

 

Well, two things to say about that:

 

(i) One has to wonder about the emotional maturity of certain people here. Grow up, for goodness sake!

 

and

 

(ii) As I said, I'm new here; I'm not sure what the function of these "reputation" points is. If a certain number is reached, may we expect a public lynching?

[Scott Mayers]

I haven't been following this thread closely, but the following caught my eye...

 

 

Yes, Scott, precisely the same thing has been happening to me in my own thread. I only joined the site two or three weeks ago, eager to learn and share with others, and I don't recall being abusive to anyone. This hasn't stopped other members -- the old hands, I assume -- from engaging in an assassination-of-reputation campaign, hammering away ecstatically at their "-1" keys. I believe my "reputation" now hovers around the -20 mark, challenging Stalin and Mao for baddest ass on the planet.

 

Well, two things to say about that:

 

(i) One has to wonder about the emotional maturity of certain people here. Grow up, for goodness sake!

 

and

 

(ii) As I said, I'm new here; I'm not sure what the function of these "reputation" points is. If a certain number is reached, may we expect a public lynching?

Thank you. In another thread I opened I'm being harassed too in which some avatar named, David345, accused me of being or having sockpuppets of which you too were named in his/her/its list. See http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91055-foundations-of-maths/?p=887578 for this. I'll keep going. I'm one for gaining ground on reducing online abuses in forums but it takes a while.

[studiot]

 

Scott Mayers

 

 

All extracts from this thread.

 

 

Post#4 8/10/2015

regarding the use of math of probabilities and to how physicists use this with regards to Quantum Mechanics, etc.

 

 

Post#8 8/10/2015

 

 

I'm trying to see if you or others can enumerate the different ways to assign values to a probability or whether you (or others) interpret a strict interpretation here. I also want to later (not necessarily in this thread) introduce the Monty Hall Problem and find this would be a good precursor to discussing that.

 

 

Post# 27 10/10/2015

 

I DID NOT introduce probability in relation to the Monty Hall problem nor quantum mechanics.

 

 

 

 

Need I say more?

[Scott Mayers]

 

 

Need I say more?

Unless there is a language barrier, even reading what you reposted of my quotes clearly speaks on motivation, not the topic itself. I even was concerned whether mentioning it would be problematic and precisely why I opted not to at the start. It prejudices the reader who uses one's motivational factors to dismiss the argument at hand.

 

From Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive]

Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy.

A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the argument and its conclusion. Indeed, it is often assumed that the mere possibility of motive is evidence enough.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Scott Mayers