why so angry?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In this scenario that you have created, are you playing the part of God?

Word salad.

Originally posted by bbarr
So, throwing an unconnected carburetor into an empty engine casing increases the probability that the car will start?

If want a technically correct and mathematical answer then yes. If there is a 1 in a 10000 trillion chance that the carbureter assembles itself in mid air and lands in the right place then there might be also a billion to one chance that someone might chuck an alternator in as well etc etc and then someone turns the key and the engine starts. The chances of it happening may have moved from 100000000000000000 trillion to one to 10000000000000 trillion to one and would still be an increased probability.

However , in the bomb scenario all that would need to happen was for the fuse to become connected inadvertently and the bomb would detonate. This may not be very likely but that is hardly the point. You did not stipulate how small or great the increase in probability needed to be just that it could not increase. You also could not say that there was a 0% chance of the fuse becoming connected (which you could not do because you cannot even predict with certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow only that it is highly likely) . Thus your statement that lighting the fuse would not increase the probability of the bomb detonating is technically false if you really think about it because you have initiated one of the events that needs to happen in order to produce detonation. Come on Barr , I thought you were the educated one , I haven't even read much on probability and I can figure this much out.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In the example given the probability that the fuse would EVER be connected to the bomb (within the time frame of the example) was fixed at 0.
So, whatever other events take place, as long as the fuse being connected to the bomb is a requirement for the bomb going off, the probability of the bomb going off remains at 0 and is thus totally unaffected by any other events.

Ah , so BARR meant that lighting the fuse would not raise the probability of the bomb detonating at THAT PRECISE MOMENT . ? The problem is that he did not stipulate this or make it clear that there was a 0% chance of the fuse being connected. (Read for yourself below) However, even if he DID mean at that precise moment how could he guarantee that the fuse would not also be connected by some idiot at the same precise moment? Infact , how do we guarantee with any 100% certainty that any event is either possible or not possible? I could say that a herd of alien elephants is about to emerge out of a balck hole on top of you head 5 minutes from now and all you could ever rationally say is that it's incredibly unlikely. But can you say it could never happen and be mathematically 100% certain?

What BARR said.... "Further, there are cases where it is only a constellation of causes that are jointly sufficient to bring about some effect, where in the absence of any one of the causes the others don't even raise the probability of the effect occuring. Lighting the fuse doesn't raise the probability of the bomd detonating unless the fuse is connected to the bomb, and connecting the fuse doesn't raise the probability of the bomb detonating unless the fuse is lit."

The premise is still false since there is no way that the fuse becoming connected can be stated as impossible , thus it is only highly unlikely and the possibility of the bomb going off is real (the fact of it being unlikely is irrelevant)

Originally posted by bbarr
Word salad.

I'll take that as affirmative.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If want a technically correct and mathematical answer then yes. If there is a 1 in a 10000 trillion chance that the carbureter assembles itself in mid air and lands in the right place then there might be also a billion to one chance that someone might chuck an alternator in as well etc etc and then someone turns the key and the engine starts. The chanc ...[text shortened]... were the educated one , I haven't even read much on probability and I can figure this much out.

You are adding events to make the probability greater than zero. That
is, the carburetor's magical landing alone doesn't increase the chances
of the car's starting, the magical landing of an alternator is required, too.
That is, you are acknowledging joint sufficiency -- that carburetor's magic
landing alone is not sufficient for increasing the likelihood of the car's starting.

Similarly, merely attaching the unlit fuse doesn't increase the likelihood
of the bomb's going off. Neither does simply lighting an unconnected one.
Both of those things are required to increase the likelihood of the
bomb's going off. Joint sufficiency. You confess to this in your very
text when you say 'the fuse might become connected.' It is the
joint lighting and connecting that increases the likelihood, not either
of them separately.

Do you understand this?

Nemesio

Originally posted by twhitehead
In the example given the probability that the fuse would EVER be connected to the bomb (within the time frame of the example) was fixed at 0.
So, whatever other events take place, as long as the fuse being connected to the bomb is a requirement for the bomb going off, the probability of the bomb going off remains at 0 and is thus totally unaffected by any other events.

Don't go to the thread about evolution then: you'll be disabused of any such positions.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'll take that as affirmative.

The fact of the matter is, the options available to us are what we are free to choose. The limitations of the menu do not somehow render us any less of a participant, nor does such limitation reduce the freedom of our choice: we can even simply opt out of the menu altogether (a la the "to be or not to be" scenario available to anyone in the game), should we decide to reject the options made available to us.

However, even 'not to be' is but another option, thus something we are given freedom in choosing. Yes, even our freedom of choice is granted to us by God. Amazing, ain't it?

Originally posted by Nemesio
You are adding events to make the probability greater than zero. That
is, the carburetor's magical landing alone doesn't increase the chances
of the car's starting, the magical landing of an alternator is required, too.
That is, you are acknowledging joint sufficiency -- that carburetor's magic
landing alone is not sufficient for increasing the likeliho ...[text shortened]... the likelihood, not either
of them separately.

Do you understand this?

Nemesio

I understand this alright but I just think it's wrong because probability IS about what might happen and NOT about what actually happens. The ACTUAL connection of the fuse is not needed in order for the probability to be raised. The fact that it is not connected is entirely irrelevant to probability. Unless one can offer an absolute guarantee that the fuse can never be connected then the probability of an explosion is increased. Probability is about uncertain prediction of events . So I would ask how can BARR be certain about his fuse not becoming connected? He could say that the fuse is now lit and and the fuse is not connected and the bomb has not gone off but then he would not be talking about probability anymore but actuality.

The mistake you are both making is here ...the fact that an alternator is required and there is no alternator does not mean that THERE CAN BE NO ALTERNATOR. In other words although an alternator is required , one cannot rule it out magically being thrown in simultaneously by a bystander.

" the carburetor's magical landing alone doesn't increase the chances
of the car's starting, the magical landing of an alternator is required, too." NEMESIO

Imagine you have an accumulater bet on two horses and they both have to win for you to get 20-00. Does the first horse winning increase the chances of you collecting? Of course it does. Just because the first horse winning is not sufficient for you to collect does NOT mean that the probability is 0 % . Your chances are better even if the next horse is 1000000 -1 . This could also apply if both horses ran at the same time.

There is always a series of events that come together to make something happen. Like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle , if you include one you have a greater chance of it happening . The fact that you still depend on other events matters not. BARRS problem is that he is talking about probabilty which by implication means prediction and prediction means we ARE in the realms of what MIGHT be.

The only way you can get the probability down to 0% would be to explode the bomb first and and then light the fuse.

Originally posted by knightmeister

The only way you can get the probability down to 0% would be to explode the bomb first and and then light the fuse.

And what is it about that scenario that makes it different?

Originally posted by knightmeister
The only way you can get the probability down to 0% would be to explode the bomb first and and then light the fuse.

But surely theres a 100000000000000000 trillion to one chance that the atoms of the exploded bomb will reassemble themselves into a bomb?

Anyway we are getting off topic. probably because you don't have an answer to the question of what makes the choice and how is it made. If not causally or random then what? And don't start with the "I make the choice freely nonsense"

Originally posted by knightmeister
I understand this alright but I just think it's wrong because probability IS about what might happen and NOT about what actually happens. The ACTUAL connection of the fuse is not needed in order for the probability to be raised. The fact that it is not connected is entirely irrelevant to probability. Unless one can offer an absolute guarantee that the ...[text shortened]... the probability down to 0% would be to explode the bomb first and and then light the fuse.

The answer to my final question, actually, was evidently, 'no.'

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
And what is it about that scenario that makes it different?

I guess I'll just finish off this line of questioning myself.

knightmeister: Well, Doctor, the detonation logically depends on the bomb not being exploded. It is impossible to detonate a bomb that has already exploded.

Doctor S: But in the original scenario, it is stipulated that the detonation logically depends on the fuse being connected and the fuse being lit. It is impossible to detonate such a bomb if the fuse is not connected.

knightmeister: Yeah, I guess you're right. It must follow from the truth of my claim that you cited that bbarr's conclusion is also true.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I guess I'll just finish off this line of questioning myself.

knightmeister: Well, Doctor, the detonation logically depends on the bomb not being exploded. It is impossible to detonate a bomb that has already exploded.

Doctor S: But in the original scenario, it is stipulated that the detonation logically depends on the fuse being connected an ...[text shortened]... t must follow from the truth of my claim that you cited that bbarr's conclusion is also true.

Did it take two edits because you needed time to get into each persona?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But surely theres a 100000000000000000 trillion to one chance that the atoms of the exploded bomb will reassemble themselves into a bomb?

Anyway we are getting off topic. probably because you don't have an answer to the question of what makes the choice and how is it made. If not causally or random then what? And don't start with the "I make the choice freely nonsense"

But surely theres a 100000000000000000 trillion to one chance that the atoms of the exploded bomb will reassemble themselves into a bomb? WHITEY

Yes , absolutely right . I had thought about going down that road but since barr and nemesio are having difficulty understanding basic probability I thought it would be too confusing for them. The reality is that we could never get to 0% so whatever we did with the fuse would be likely to either increase or decrease the probability of an explosion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But surely theres a 100000000000000000 trillion to one chance that the atoms of the exploded bomb will reassemble themselves into a bomb?

Anyway we are getting off topic. probably because you don't have an answer to the question of what makes the choice and how is it made. If not causally or random then what? And don't start with the "I make the choice freely nonsense"

Anyway we are getting off topic. probably because you don't have an answer to the question of what makes the choice and how is it made. If not causally or random then what? And don't start with the "I make the choice freely nonsense" WHITEY

I thought I had had a go at this , maybe on another thread though. I always get confused when I get involved in more than one thread.