All things 50/50

[alsheron]

it will be instructive to actually experiment then. this should be easy to do. set up a stochastic process whose probabilities are not 1/2, then run it and see what you get. i can assure you it will not be 1/2, if you are counting properly.

In this, your assumption is that a process is in fact random. This is simply not true. No process or event occurs at random. Nevertheless, lets assume that processes can in fact be random. Even in this case, I am not talking about a multiplicity of events or outcomes, but specifically about a pre-specificed outcome of or from an even or even the event itself either happening or not happening. In this context, there are two quantities to be dealt with: happening or not happening, regardless of the actual event.

i'm not sure how a "decider" solves anything. we did just as well without a decider (e.g. random distribution).

A decider solves exactly the problem that if my law of 50/50 dynamics is accepted, the question arises as to why or how events such as apples dropping to earth and certain horses or dogs winning at the races more often or less often than a 50/50 distribution occurance would indicate. If the probabilities of events occuring or not occuring were equal then there should be no observable patterns to ANY occurances, since ALL occurances or non-occurances would occur with equal regularity, over time.

This is clearly not the case. Events occur or do not occur largely according to patterns. Not all patterns are distinguishable, but those that are, are very useful for humankind in the organising of living habits and behaviour, not to mention plants, animals and whatever else may find patterns of occurance useful or necessary. For every occurance or non occurance, a choice is made, if you like, at random, if you like, by God or some power or intelligence beyond human perception (if the latter troubles a reader, use the former) as to what will occur and what will not occur. The reality is that there are only ever two options and the nature of these options, being "likely" or "unlikely" is merely an applied misappropriated level of certainty.

I am no fallibilist. :)

i remember i once thought about fallibilism as assigning infinite probabilities in a distribution, and then assigning those distributions infinite probabilities, and so on (i have the paper, if you're interested).

I'd be very interested in reading that paper..... Sounds very interesting...... Compounding infinite probabilities never was something I saw as the crux of fallibilism. It'd be interesting to see how you approached it.

I don't think i'm an idealist skeptic either, and not just to break out of those boxes. My proposition negates the necessity for those kinds of boundaries and need to define its subtext entirely. It's simplicity is it's strength, although I very well understand this simplicity can be seen as too "simplistic". The complexity of any other formal theories or treatises are exactly the source of their inaccuracy. They are complex in order to be accurate at the expense of being inaccurate, although mostly applicable and useful to some extent.

I don't see a problem with induction. I see no "leap of faith" in the assertion that since every possible occurance of every possible event, in reality, holds a 50/50 probability of occurance, there exists a force that defines and shapes those outcomes, "choosing" between an event happening or not happening, "be-ing" or not "be-ing".

wait, this is a direct contradiction to what you said earlier! if you are counting properly according to your theory, you should have the orange dog winning 1/2 the time, the purple dog winning 1/2 the time, the green dog winning 1/2 the time, the orange dog dying 1/2 the time, etc. these, as you said, are all different alternatives and ought to be afforded the same probability of 1/2.

It is here where I see most clearly how poorly I have previously and possibly currently stated my case. My "theory" does indeed state the above, that in those cases all eventualities would occur 1/2 the time in all instances. What is crucial however, is that that's not the way things work out in our EXPERIENCE.

Experience tells us that certain events occur more often than others. From this experience, humankind have formulated mathematical models to use this observation in order to plan for the future or to "predict" events or outcomes of expected occurances. These formulations are nothing more than useful tools but do not reflect the reality that at their root, events, very simply, can either occur or not occur. The faliure or very unpredictability and degree of uncertainty of these mathematical models, for example of weather patterns, is congruous with my proposition.

Using the example of weather patterns, the movement of the planets around the sun, the rising of the tide and other events that follow distinguishable patterns, there are also events that cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty by very nature of their unpredictability. It is this unpredictability that points towards and affirms the very simple law of 50/50 dynamics, and it is these imposed patterns of events that points towards and affirms the "choices" of something outside of our realm of understanding (often acceptance).

[alsheron]

First, I think your testable answer have been roundly rebutted by Dreamz - as they undoubtedly would be by any reputable mathematician.

Second it is the unshakable 'faith' you have in the correctness of your own views in light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary that has a familiar feel to me. I never read your comments about your belief in a deity, although it appears since you have that my hunch may have had some validity.

In effect you 'prove' your hypothesis simply by discounting the vast body of work that has gone into researching the laws of probability in the past - research that in large part that as well as choosing to discount, you also appear to be largely unaware of.

The 'correctness' of your views appear to only be validated by your determination to continue to repeat them ad-infinitum without answering directly, or without appearing to understand any of the criticisms that have been given.

Your interpretation is a fundamentally flawed indeed (as dreamz pointed out) almost infantile understanding of the laws of chance - which is a subject that has been studied in huge detail by a vast number of eminently more qualified people than you (and indeed than me), none of which that I can recall have ever attempted to put forward any idea as simplistic and as poorly formulated as yours. Indeed I can barely see any mathematics at all in any of the assumptions you have made.

Nonetheless, why not do as you say and write up your paper - or try to gauge the opinion of a some more qualified mathematicians on some popular mathematics forums (of which there are several I could recommend) and then you could come back here and rub all our noses in the brilliance and wisdom of your insight and your undoubted ensuing global infamy.

And what I wonder are the chances of that happening? Personally, I would be willing to offer you odds of several millions to one against.

Still... there are some people in the world who would be prepared to offer odds on the discovery of wing borne pigs - so you never know...

GJ

The probability, my friend, of my writing a paper, properly detailing my proposition is precisely...... well..... you know the rest.

Ad infinitum? Hopefully not...... Hopefully, i'll finally be able to explain that this is not some "infantile" (i wish i could take offence) supposition.

It's very clear to me that you've taken exception to my first law of 50/50 dynamics of the grounds of a mis-understanding.

If you understood what I was (trying) to get across, perhaps i'd take more seriously your entirely valid criticism. So far, even the mighty Dreamz hasn't deciphered my decidedly convoluted prose.

If any mistake has been made on my part, i'd say it was that I assumed I could clearly convey what is to me a simple observation. Clearly not.

I must say though, that i very much appreicate the feedback, and undoubted patience of those who have replied. :)

Edited March 1, 2006 by alsheron

[raid517]

Then write your paper and prove your hypothesis through the use of pure mathematics, rather than through - well what exactly? Your ability to go on endlessly repeating the same basic fundamental errors over and over again? Your insistence that all previous mathematical work on this subject is irrelevant? The fact that you have been treated patently here, whereas even in a basic elementary school, or early high school environment you would be laughed at both on your way in and out of the classroom?

But lets play your little game. I would be happy to wager as much as $100,000 to your $1 that you can submit your theory to a respected mathematical journal and have it published, peer reviewed and taken seriously.

If everything were 50/50 then why are we not all rich? Why can't I buy a lottery ticket (or maybe 10) and win 50% of the time?

This sounds like a vague and very poorly executed attempt to disprove the role of chance in existence - although how that it supposed to be derived from your 'theory' remains as muddled and as unclear as when you first stated it.

In any case if your theory is 'simple', then I'm afraid that it is almost certainly much too simple for me.

GJ

[shine_victim]

BS to this theory!

What is the probablility that people are going to out-number your view in this topic?

[dreamz Veteran]

In this, your assumption is that a process is in fact random. This is simply not true. No process or event occurs at random.

this is clearly wrong. you need to step back and think about what you're saying. you're mixing a scientific perspective with a philosophical assumption (namely, that a process exists a priori). first of all, if it is a priori, you would need to justify it somehow, without reference to your intuition, methods, etc. now, epistemologically speaking, given that it is a priori-knowable, but empirically indistinguishable (or impossible), and given that you cannot transcend your epistemological system, you have absolutely no right to say that a random process is a priori random. this is the first flaw with your theory, which hinges upon this very assumption. and, of course, taking it axiomatically does not solve anything.

moreover, i fail to see what is gained by calling it a priori random. there is no theoretical or practical basis or usefulness in such a position.

In this context, there are two quantities to be dealt with: happening or not happening, regardless of the actual event.

you are again mixing things together, leading to disastrous results. let's say you have a container filled with white balls. you know for a fact that there are white balls, and only white balls, because you filled the container. now, you reach in and pick out a ball and hold it in your hand. what is the probability that the ball is white? remember, you know the event, and you know that you picked up the ball. but according to your "theory", you would have to say that the probability of the ball being white is 1/2, which makes no sense. you have falsely defined the complement! now, of course, you are free to argue that there is an infinite sum of probabilities, e.g. that the ball changes color when you pick it up, that you are really a brain in a vat (the skeptic reborn!), and so on.

but here we have another flaw: you have not proven mathematically that this set must be 1/2, nor have you shown its necessity, nor have you explained how the infinities are to be counted, excluded, grouped, etc. furthermore, this type of skeptical attitude, while healthy in promoting a new perspective, does nothing here. if you cannot quantify accurately a real probability, then it is either unreal or useless.

the value of a notion is often measured by what it requires. here, a rational person would be willing to accept that the ball will not be white, for whatever reason (e.g. the ball flies away). but since you can neither interpret nor quantify this "possibility", it is useless.

moreover, as i've explained already, you absolutely cannot argue for the 1/2 rule for the infinities contained within the outcomes. first, this makes no sense logically. second, it completely abolishes the understanding of exhaustion and exclusion, which you seem to accept, at least insofar as it helps your theory, but seem to deny when it does not work. third, this type of compositionality has no basis and no effect. finally, the only resolution here would be to argue that all the infinities would be contained under some headings HIERARCHICALLY, but then 1) they are useless anyway and can be ignored, and 2) there is no reason to suppose that they are mutually exclusive or completely exhaustive, and 3) there is no mathematical basis for them being 1/2.

i did the math in my head and i can see already that it won't work. if you can't come up with a probability calculus that 1) has formal rules, and 2) has formal applications, i doubt its validity.

A decider solves exactly the problem that if my law of 50/50 dynamics is accepted, the question arises as to why or how events such as apples dropping to earth and certain horses or dogs winning at the races more often or less often than a 50/50 distribution occurance would indicate. If the probabilities of events occuring or not occuring were equal then there should be no observable patterns to ANY occurances, since ALL occurances or non-occurances would occur with equal regularity, over time.

whether you have a decider, or you, or nature, etc. doesn't matter. the point is, you cannot jump from the empirical to the a priori as you have defined it. probability has a limited relation to what we might think of as being the "actual" reality. that is one reason why we have probabilities in the first place. your "theory" does not seem to understand that. now, as i've said already, the even distribution is a conflation between outcomes and probabilities. what's more, you fail to understand the distinctions between probability, modality, and fallibilism.

I am no fallibilist. :)

then your arguments do not make sense.

I'd be very interested in reading that paper..... Sounds very interesting...... Compounding infinite probabilities never was something I saw as the crux of fallibilism. It'd be interesting to see how you approached it.

it was a really simple construction. a distribution is assigned to infinitely many possibilities, and that distribution is one of infinitely many distributions, distributed by another distribution, and so on. basically, i just defined a dstribution as an infinite recursion of distributions.

My proposition negates the necessity for those kinds of boundaries and need to define its subtext entirely. It's simplicity is it's strength, although I very well understand this simplicity can be seen as too "simplistic".

the problem is, it is too simple that 1) it has no application, and 2) it has no mathematical or logical structure that can be reasonably interpreted.

i urge you to come up with a real mathematical formulation of it. i have a feeling that it will not be mathematically coherent.

I don't see a problem with induction.

then you definitely need to read the works by popper, etc.

What is crucial however, is that that's not the way things work out in our EXPERIENCE. Experience tells us that certain events occur more often than others.

again, you show a misunderstanding of apriority and empirical analysis.

but this is not meant to discourage you. i definitely encourage you to write it up. but so far you have not refuted any of my arguments, which you should do if you are considering a formal theory. i would suggest you take a more humble view of your own thesis and see what it implies. and i mean, seriously think about it. you obviously do not think much of my mathematical and philosophical/logical abilities, so i suggest you take it up with professors, and the like. no one would be happier to see kolmogorov, laplace, etc. completely refuted! but you may find that they are less charitable than i am.

at this point, i'm not sure how much more can be said. you have failed to provide a consistent, logico-mathematical foundation, valid arguments, examples, applications, etc. and ignored all of my refutations.

[PezDspncr]

so what you're saying is the probability of your theory being correct is 50%

[alsheron]

BS to this theory!

What is the probablility that people are going to out-number your view in this topic?

What do YOU think?

[alsheron]

[quote

at this point, i'm not sure how much more can be said. you have failed to provide a consistent, logico-mathematical foundation, valid arguments, examples, applications, etc. and ignored all of my refutations.

I've certainly not ignored all of your refutations. In fact, some of them have made me think a lot more about what i've been saying...... What i've yet to come up with of course are these logico-mathematical foundations you speak of or some formula..... This will take a few days..... I'll come up with something much more "formalised" and post it here asap..... In the meantime, as i said, i very much appreciate both your patience and effort spent replying to my posts on this topic......

Rest assured, i will, if conviced (your explanations and rebuttals have been impressive in this context), accept that my "theory" is invalid and/or useless......

Until then.....