Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. Predictions can be made in a qualified Bayesian sense, but not in an absolute sense. Even the things we think are 100% are probably 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999%. Basically I think you're both right...but ultimately I side with Kaye. If we could truly predict things then we could, IDK, access a different universe, black hole barrier notwithstanding. Point is, we could do a ton more in empirical terms.
The argument is not 99.999999999%. It's 50:50. If any of you really sided with that argument you would not be here. You wouldn't bother turning on your computer because it probably wouldn't work...maybe 50/50. You wouldn't leave your house to purchase food because there would be a good chance the flying sp. monster would drop a turd on your head and kill you before you got to the store. You wouldn't function at all. It's just an absurd argument, although the rationale is likely the result of some fear factor evolutionary boon for survival.
Quote:
2. The argument for non-existence of all children could be found to be made only by people who are emotionally/mentally unwell, yet that would not detract from the theoretical validity of the argument. Arguments exist apart from emotion...although if you were to ask my guess, my guess would be that the people most proficient in logic would be somewhat emotionally unwell. My hypothesis, perhaps overgeneralizing from my own case....
No, it's very small minded to assume the biochemical perspective of one tiny creature could ever be generalized past his own nose. No way.
The argument is not 99.999999999%. It's 50:50. If any of you really sided with that argument you would not be here. You wouldn't bother turning on your computer because it probably wouldn't work...maybe 50/50. You wouldn't leave your house to purchase food because there would be a good chance the flying sp. monster would drop a turd on your head and kill you before you got to the store. You wouldn't function at all. It's just an absurd argument, although the rationale is likely the result of some fear factor evolutionary boon for survival.
No, it's very small minded to assume the biochemical perspective of one tiny creature could ever be generalized past his own nose. No way.
If there's one thing I'm naturally really good at, it's numbers, and you have me really confused right now. Just like nothing is truly 100%, nothing is truly 50%. No such thing as a fair coin (given wind and thumb-flipping velocity and whatnot)
But especially if you meant to imply that a philosophical argument (which I also happen to be pretty good at) was 50/50. That's as much sense as I could make out of what you said (which is not sensible)
(basically if we truly understood prediction then the supposed randomness of quantum mechanics would not exist at the moment...and I don't know whether Heisenberg Uncertainty is a hurdle that can be overcome, even in theory)
Ok, but who cares about QM when we're deciding if we're going to eat a piece of cheese, walk across the street after looking both ways, or taking an advil? I leave that to incense burning, new agers. When I'm designing an experiment I'm looking at what I can control, then control for it, and what I expect my outcome to be. My data typically falls in line and when it doesn't I either throw it out or investigate. That a few in this thread think everything random is funny given this particular mode of communication in itself. Or, maybe I'm not talking to anyone. Maybe I'm hallucinating this whole conversation. Or maybe you are.
Ok, but who cares about QM when we're deciding if we're going to eat a piece of cheese, walk across the street after looking both ways, or taking an advil? I leave that to incense burning, new agers. When I'm designing an experiment I'm looking at what I can control, then control for it, and what I expect my outcome to be. My data typically falls in line and when it doesn't I either throw it out or investigate. That a few in this thread think everything random is funny given this particular mode of communication in itself. Or, maybe I'm not talking to anyone. Maybe I'm hallucinating this whole conversation. Or maybe you are.
Yeah, but none of those things are 50/50, ever. 50/50s don't exist, given how the world actually works. Perceived 50/50s exist (coinflip), but actual 50/50s don't exist. Discrepancy between what actually exists and our limited knowledge. Life is a game of limited information.
If there's one thing I'm naturally really good at, it's numbers, and you have me really confused right now. Just like nothing is truly 100%, nothing is truly 50%. No such thing as a fair coin (given wind and thumb-flipping velocity and whatnot)
It doesn't matter if it's a true 50%. The point is that life is not a coin toss.
Yeah, but none of those things are 50/50, ever. 50/50s don't exist, given how the world actually works. Perceived 50/50s exist (coinflip), but actual 50/50s don't exist. Discrepancy between what actually exists and our limited knowledge. Life is a game of limited information.
Sure, it's all limited, but we have enough information in order to make decisions about our lives that lends to certainty or at least enough certainty that we carry on. Anyhow, off to the gym I go!
Nobody should exist because you stubbed your toe and you are therefore concerned that other people will stub their toes. Get real.
It's called empathy. I am not an irrational selfish animal like yourself only concerned about your own pleasure. You don't give a **** if there are people suffering and dying as long as you are having a great time here. You only care about yourself.
What if any given action could be mapped as a function of perceived probability to another human? Say you either reply to my post or don't...that means that the right answer probabilistically of whether you reply is 100 or 0. At any given time brain chemistry (ridiculously complicated as it is) and external factors (which at the same time influence that brain chemistry) could be shown to influence this calculus until finally the tipping point is reached--1 or 0
IDK if that's an accurate mapping of a human decision-making point, but...something like that. That's how an attempt to artificially map the human brain/nervous system would work, methinks
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
