Higher than "chance"

[Bronze Dog]

No it couldn't possibly happen in any conceivable way according to everything we know about the universe.
But the cards example could perfectly easily within the known physical laws. Indeed any time you deal cards out to four people the chances of them getting the cards they end up with are the exact same number as getting four perfect suits. It just happens to look random to us.
If the rules of a card game were to get 13 different cards then all of a sudden those cards would take on significance to us.
So not only can something that unlikely possibly happen, it happens every single time you deal the cards.

Good point, Ashles. Example: Getting a royal flush in poker is four times as likely as getting a hand of 2 of clubs, 5 of diamonds, king of spades, jack of diamonds, and eight of clubs. Getting a royal flush of spades, however, is equally as likely as the hand I mentioned.

Most people, however, don't particularly care about all the combinations they don't wind up with... except for the ones they need to win.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Just straightforward possible as in it possibly could happen. Against physical laws you say? Certainly, but there again we do not know with incorrigible certitude that such physical laws are Universal and will apply forevermore. We feel that the scenario I painted is astonishing unlikely, although it can't of course be quantified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No it couldn't possibly happen in any conceivable way according to everything we know about the universe.
But the cards example could perfectly easily within the known physical laws.

{sighs}

Do you understand anything Ashless?

The fact that the cards example is not inconsistent with the way we understand the Universe to operate, does not thereby make it more of a plausible or likely scenario than something happening which contravenes the way we understand the Universe to operate.

It simply does not follow. Simple elementary logic. You should try it sometime.

 

[Ashles]

{sighs}

Do you understand anything Ashless?

The fact that the cards example is not inconsistent with the way we understand the Universe to operate, does not thereby make it more of a plausible or likely scenario than something happening which contravenes the way we understand the Universe to operate.

It simply does not follow. Simple elementary logic. You should try it sometime.

I love how when you are utterly cornered in an argument you resort to personal insults.

Plus I just have to repost your message. In bold.

"The fact that the cards example is not inconsistent with the way we understand the Universe to operate, does not thereby make it more of a plausible or likely scenario than something happening which contravenes the way we understand the Universe to operate."

No further comment neccessary.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Suzeold declared she/he got 48 right out of 52.

This changes the odds calculations considerably down from 48 straight correct.

I tried to work them out but the calculation is REALLY complex (too much for me).

IRONY ALERT.

Telling Ian according to the odds he doesn’t exist… Ian ACTUALLY thinks he DOESN”T exist….lol. So he will agree !

 

[Interesting Ian]

Plus I just have to repost your message. In bold.

"The fact that the cards example is not inconsistent with the way we understand the Universe to operate, does not thereby make it more of a plausible or likely scenario than something happening which contravenes the way we understand the Universe to operate."

No further comment neccessary. [/B]

OK, Ashles thinks this clearly false. So therefore he thinks that any event -- no matter how improbable -- consistent with known physical laws, must necessarily be more likely to occur than an event which contravenes known physical laws. I'm curious, do other people agree or disagree with Ashles?

 

[Ashles]

OK, Ashles thinks this clearly false. So therefore he thinks that any event -- no matter how improbable -- consistent with known physical laws, must necessarily be more likely to occur than an event which contravenes known physical laws. I'm curious, do other people agree or disagree with Ashles?

Wow, what are all these new words I find in my mouth? Oh they appear to have been placed there by Ian.

Let me just move this wickerman out of the way. *Grunting* Okay.

Now let me ask the question as I might have asked it. What is more likely? The cards example, or some event that contravenes known physical laws?

I don't want to sway anyone's judgement or anything, but lets just remember that the cards thing... happens thousands of times every day, wherever a deck of cards is dealt to four people.

I know you love inventing probabilities for things Ian so why don't you invent the probabilities for those two events. Bearing in mind we already actually know the chances of one of them.

 

[Ratman_tf]

OK, Ashles thinks this clearly false. So therefore he thinks that any event -- no matter how improbable -- consistent with known physical laws, must necessarily be more likely to occur than an event which contravenes known physical laws. I'm curious, do other people agree or disagree with Ashles?

I'd tend to agree. Taking the cards example, we have everything we need to make 48 right guesses. Cards and a guesser. All you'd need theoretically is time for enough trials. The head thing is a case where no one has been known to survive without a head. Everything known about human biology indicates that it would be impossible to survive without a head, and there's no reliable record of anyone surviving a decapitation in human history.

 

[Suezoled]

Suzeold declared she/he got 48 right out of 52.

This changes the odds calculations considerably down from 48 straight correct.

I tried to work them out but the calculation is REALLY complex (too much for me).

IRONY ALERT.

Telling Ian according to the odds he doesn’t exist… Ian ACTUALLY thinks he DOESN”T exist….lol. So he will agree !

All she had to do was guess whether or not the card was Black or Red.

Or did you guys forget that?

 

[Jocce]

Actually, I belive the odds to be far below 281,474,976,710,656 or whatever was mentioned.

Using 0.5*0.5...etc is irrelevant since that only calculates the probability of an exact sequence (ie. 48 correct in a row) and we don't know if that happened.

With p=0.5, N would have to be significantly larger than 52 to give any indication on anything since each "guess" would have to be seen as an isolated event and not as part of a sequence.

Also, this experiment is not blind since the used cards are known. That makes it kinda irrelevant to calculate any probabilities.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

I'm assuming that Ian is joking about the card deal not being possible.

(If you're not, can you explain WHY it's impossible? What force stops the cards from arranging themselves in that particular configuration, but allows all other configurations?)

Seriously, this is as ridiculous as I have seen Ian get.

 

[rppa]

OK, Ashles thinks this clearly false. So therefore he thinks that any event -- no matter how improbable -- consistent with known physical laws

... which therefore has probability p > 0 of occurring ...

must necessarily be more likely to occur than an event which contravenes known physical laws.

... which has probability 0 of occurring.

I'm curious, do other people agree or disagree with Ashles?

There's a correct version of what I think you're trying to say, but in the way you phrased it, yes I agree with Ashles that a number which is greater than 0 is necessarily bigger than a number equal to 0.

That's what you're asking. "Do any of the rest of you agree that a positive real value which is not zero is necessarily larger than 0?"

 

[Jocce]

The fact that the cards example is not inconsistent with the way we understand the Universe to operate, does not thereby make it more of a plausible or likely scenario than something happening which contravenes the way we understand the Universe to operate.

It simply does not follow. Simple elementary logic. You should try it sometime.

Hmm..I don't quite follow you.

1. "Not inconsistent with the way we understand". Double negation gives "IS consistent with". I agree, the card example is consistent with the way we understand things...scientifically that is.

2. Speaking of logic, it seems like you have a lot to learn. The only way to even start applying logic is by postulating some KNOWN facts. If you don't do that, you can't do logic. It's as simple as that.

3. What you're doing here is to remove all foundation for the logic excercise which results in a game of chance. And on that foundation I agree with you. If the only known fact when I drop a stone is that it will either drop, float or shoot up into the sky then each of those has an equal probability.

Since most of us happen to know about gravity here on earth we would likely base our logic excercises on those facts rather than on chance though.

Really Ian, if you're gonna go around insulting peoples lack of logic you should really at least try to educate yourself on the foundations in that discipline in advance. Thank you anyway for your continued interest in the topics here. Your posts are a most welcome source of amusement to me.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I'm assuming that Ian is joking about the card deal not being possible.

(If you're not, can you explain WHY it's impossible?

What force stops the cards from arranging themselves in that particular configuration, but allows all other configurations?)

Seriously, this is as ridiculous as I have seen Ian get.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it wouldn't happen. Let's take another example. A car is parked next to a wall. Now, physical laws allow it to suddenly disappear and reappear on the other side of the wall within the next 5 seconds (quantum tunnelling). So that is something which is possible and consistent with physical laws. But it ain't going to happen.

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
OK, Ashles thinks this clearly false. So therefore he thinks that any event -- no matter how improbable -- consistent with known physical laws[/b]

rppa
... which therefore has probability p > 0 of occurring ...

II

must necessarily be more likely to occur than an event which contravenes known physical laws.

rppa
... which has probability 0 of occurring.

I said more likely to occur -- not more probable. The notion of probability assumes certain things -- such as, for example, physical laws will continue to describe the world. How do we know that gravity won't cease to exist tomorrow?

Or more mundanely, what about someone using anomalous perturbation (micro-psychokinesis) influencing a (non- pseudo) random number generator so that on average it gives out 101 ones for every 100 zero's?

Or more mundanely yet still, what about something like the orbit of Mercury at the beginning of the 20th century. Did it really have zero likelihood that our measurements of its orbit were correct?

A zero likelihood which nevertheless transpires to be the case!

 

[Ashles]

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it wouldn't happen.

So it's
a) 'not impossible'
b) has actually happened
c) happens to an equally unlikely probability every time four people are dealt cards

Yet you still claim it wouldn't happen?

You are funny and silly, like a hat with donkey ears.

 

[Ashles]

I said more likely to occur -- not more probable. The notion of probability assumes certain things -- such as, for example, physical laws will continue to describe the world. How do we know that gravity won't cease to exist tomorrow?

Or more mundanely, what about someone using anomalous perturbation (micro-psychokinesis) influencing a (non- pseudo) random number generator so that on average it gives out 101 ones for every 100 zero's?

Or more mundanely yet still, what about something like the orbit of Mercury at the beginning of the 20th century. Did it really have zero likelihood that our measurements of its orbit were correct?

A zero likelihood which nevertheless transpires to be the case!

That's it Ian - keep throwing out random examples in the hope that one may at some point be correct.
But it won't change your being wrong about the cards issue. You have demonstrated over and over your lack of understanding about probability.

This reminds me of a conversation I had ages ago with a co-worker.
We were talking about the lottery and he confidently declared some combinations of numbers would never come up, for example 1,2,3,4,5,6
I explained that this was equally likely or unlikely than any other series. But he couldn't get his head round this.
He said "I guarantee those numbers wont come up next week."
I then picked six random numbers and guaranteed they wouldn't come up either.
We give such significance to random series when they form a pattern that is meaningful to us.

It seems you have fallen into the same trap Ian.

 

[Jocce]

It pleases me to see that Ian has come around and admitted that 48 correct guesses could have happened by chance. It's a bit confusing though that he now argues the opposite side, trying desperately to convince himself that he was wrong to start with.

Very strange...

And btw:

A car is parked next to a wall. Now, physical laws allow it to suddenly disappear and reappear on the other side of the wall within the next 5 seconds (quantum tunnelling).

Physical laws does not allow this. Skimming through obscure interpretations of quantum mechanics doesn't help your case one bit.

 

[Interesting Ian]

So it's
a) 'not impossible'
b) has actually happened
c) happens to an equally unlikely probability every time four people are dealt cards

Yet you still claim it wouldn't happen?

You are funny and silly, like a hat with donkey ears.

Actually, although I have had no education whatsoever in statistics, I nevertheless realise that, prior to its occurence, some event may have had a zero probability of happening, yet it nevertheless did happen.

 

[Ashles]

Actually, although I have had no education whatsoever in statistics,

I'm shocked.

I nevertheless realise that, prior to its occurence, some event may have had a zero probability of happening, yet it nevertheless did happen.

What? What? Has your mind finally dribbled out of your nose into your pint?
You are saying that something, by your own definition, is impossible, and yet it then happened?

Uh, what exactly would that be Ian? What is this impossible event that actually happened?
Did you admit you were wrong or somethig?

 

[Jocce]

Actually, although I have had no education whatsoever in statistics, I nevertheless realise that, prior to its occurence, some event may have had a zero probability of happening, yet it nevertheless did happen.

Then you need to educate yourself because that is in fact false. A more reasonable expression would be:

"For events where N is close to infinity and there are unknown influencing factors, probability can not be calculated."

One more time Ian, probability theory is only applicable on a finite set of facts. Outside that, any speculation is irrelevant.