View in: Desktop

Copyright @2017 TigerDroppings.com. All rights reserved.

- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board

Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links

- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics

Posted by

Message

quote:

kinda like a rare triple post

I once witnesses a quintuple post..and not within a thread but the same thread started 5 times within a minute by the same person. I felt like I witnessed a turning point in history

This post was edited on 12/29 at 1:45 pm

quote:

The deal with evolution though is that you can't accurately figure out the probability of life being created, because we don't know how long "matter" has existed for there to have been a probability value assigned to it being able to transform into a life form via specific chemical reactions.

Right. No one knows the calculus of such a problem.

But if you acknowledge that it equates to a non zero probability then you have to conclude that the longer the time line goes on, the greater chance of this occurring.

I don't think this is true.

I remember getting nailed in statistics class for shite like this.

If something has a 25% chance of occurring once, then doesn't, it still has a 25% chance the next attempt. Previous failure doesn't affect future chances.

Sure, longer time goes on, you have more attempts, but it still doesn't make something "bound" to happen unless you have an infinite amount of time, which our universe does not (entropy/heat death)

I remember getting nailed in statistics class for shite like this.

If something has a 25% chance of occurring once, then doesn't, it still has a 25% chance the next attempt. Previous failure doesn't affect future chances.

Sure, longer time goes on, you have more attempts, but it still doesn't make something "bound" to happen unless you have an infinite amount of time, which our universe does not (entropy/heat death)

quote:

If something has a 25% chance of occurring once, then doesn't, it still has a 25% chance the next attempt. Previous failure doesn't affect future chances.

You would be partially correct. If you flip a simple coin the previous outcomes don't have an influence on the next outcome.

But if you were to flip a coin 9 times, the probability of you hitting tails one time out of any of those 9 times certainly isn't 50% Only the individual attempts are 50%

With the passage of time you could essentially look at it as repeated attempts.

re: Please answer the following math/philosophy questionPosted by lsutothetop on 12/29/13 at 2:10 pm to Tiguar

You're referring to the Monte Carlo fallacy, which is a little different. The MC fallacy pertains to the probability of an event happening

Going back to the nomenclature I used earlier -- Event X with Y probability and Z attempts -- we can see that as Z increases, the chances of X happening go up. But there are two things that fuel the chance of X happening: Y probability, and Z attempts. It's not fallacious to say that as Z increases, the chance of X happening increases. Where it

Does that make sense?

EDIT: Just thought of an example that fits. You would agree that I have a better chance of flipping a coin and getting heads if I got to flip the coin 10 times instead of 1. But that's because I got 9 more tries. We would have a problem if I said that because I didn't get heads before, my odds of getting heads go up to 60% or 70% or whatever have you. The former (my chances improving because of more attempts) is just basic logic, the latter (the odds themselves changing because I failed previously) is the MC fallacy.

*as one step in a causal chain*rather than the entire chain.Going back to the nomenclature I used earlier -- Event X with Y probability and Z attempts -- we can see that as Z increases, the chances of X happening go up. But there are two things that fuel the chance of X happening: Y probability, and Z attempts. It's not fallacious to say that as Z increases, the chance of X happening increases. Where it

*is*fallacious, and where the MC fallacy comes into play, would be if you argued that as Z increases, Y*also*increases. Y stays the same, the chance of X happening just goes up (and eventually reaches 1) because of Z going up.Does that make sense?

EDIT: Just thought of an example that fits. You would agree that I have a better chance of flipping a coin and getting heads if I got to flip the coin 10 times instead of 1. But that's because I got 9 more tries. We would have a problem if I said that because I didn't get heads before, my odds of getting heads go up to 60% or 70% or whatever have you. The former (my chances improving because of more attempts) is just basic logic, the latter (the odds themselves changing because I failed previously) is the MC fallacy.

This post was edited on 12/29 at 2:13 pm

re: Please answer the following math/philosophy questionPosted by Tiguar on 12/29/13 at 2:12 pm to lsutothetop

Yes, I get it and agree with more attempts increasing the likelihood, but just keeping things in perspective for my own sake.

Probability has always been one thing that trips me up. I fricking hate probability.

Probability has always been one thing that trips me up. I fricking hate probability.

re: Please answer the following math/philosophy questionPosted by lsutothetop on 12/29/13 at 2:13 pm to Tiguar

Gotcha. Probability is weird (and considering infinity with it just makes it even weirder), gotta agree there

re: Please answer the following math/philosophy questionPosted by 4Andouille on 12/29/13 at 2:24 pm to Powerman

What is the answer of this math/philosophy question supposed to answer? Without knowing to what the question is referring to, yes, all events with non-zero probabilities will occur given enough time.

Could life have begun simply by random combinations of atoms given infinite attempts? Sure

Could humans have evolved from the simplest organisms into what we are today given enough time? You bet

But this logic can't be applied to the creation of the universe, as time, space and matter had yet to exist prior to the big bang.

Could life have begun simply by random combinations of atoms given infinite attempts? Sure

Could humans have evolved from the simplest organisms into what we are today given enough time? You bet

But this logic can't be applied to the creation of the universe, as time, space and matter had yet to exist prior to the big bang.

re: Please answer the following math/philosophy questionPosted by HubbaBubba on 12/29/13 at 2:36 pm to Lsupimp

quote:I had this professor in ths class come, write 'WHY?" across a blackboard and tell us to write a minimum of 1000 words on the subject.

Sudden, unexpected & horrific flashback to Philosophy 2010 at LSU.

Mine was simply,

quote:

"Why"

"Because."

"Because why?"

"Why not?"

"Because."

"Because what?"

"I don't know. Just because."

"Don't you have better reason than that?"

"Why?"

"Because."

"Because why."

"Why not?"

"Because I need to know."

"Now?"

"Yes. Now."

"Why?"

"Because."

"Because why?"

"Why not?"

On and on, ad infinitum, until the end when I reached my 1000 words and I finished it with:

quote:

"Why?"

"Because someone with nothing better to do asked me 'why'."

I labeled it, "Infinite Evasion".

re: Please answer the following math/philosophy questionPosted by CubsFanBudMan on 1/4/14 at 10:05 pm to Powerman

quote:

There are essentially 2 variables

1. A time line that is infinite

2. Events that are unlikely to happen often but have a non zero probability of occurrence

Is it true that all events with a non zero probability will eventually occur given an infinite amount of time?

When I first read this, the easy answer is yes, everything will happen at some point. Then I tried to think of a way to disprove it, and now I can. The problem with your question is, like most academics, you are assuming a vacuum. Here's an example of a non zero probability event that can never come true. Think back to the days of the dinosaurs, and what's the probability that one of them would watch the Saints win the Super Bowl? First you have to assign the probability that at some point humans would come along. Then what's the probability that one of those humans would invent the game of football, etc, etc, etc. The probability of all of those thing must be non-zero, because they happened. But you also must factor in the probability of dinosaurs becoming extinct before the Saints win the Super Bowl.

If you have 2 non-zero probabilities that conflict each other, then time not longer becomes the problem, outside factors also need to be considered.

Popular

Way to make it right.

Back to top

Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News