Higher than "chance"

[Interesting Ian]

If there's one thing that annoys Ian, it's the realisation that he doesn't understand a topic.

Well, so how come I've outargued all you guys and made you look like fools?

No one has been able to address my arguments, show that they are false, or misguided, or whatever.

If I truly do not understand this topic, then surely someone can outargue me? Show that I'm in error??

We have 2 Doctors on here insisting I am incorrect; yet they are unable to point out any errors in my reasoning

Or perhaps my errors are sooo obvious that any good old sKeptic can point them out? Maybe the errors in my thinking are soooo obvious that you really cannot be pestered to point them out?

Indulge me. Point out anything I have said whhich is incorrect. Anything at all. I give you my absolute word that if you convince me that I'm incorrect, I will readily admit it on here. Let me be quite explicit when I say that I would never continue to defend a position that I feel is no longer correct; it simply isn't in my nature.

I await with baited breath.

 

[Dr Adequate]

What's the weather like on your planet?

 

[Interesting Ian]

What's the weather like on your planet?

Well, so how come I've outargued all you guys and made you look like fools?

No one has been able to address my arguments, show that they are false, or misguided, or whatever.

If I truly do not understand this topic, then surely someone can outargue me? Show that I'm in error??

We have 2 Doctors on here insisting I am incorrect; yet they are unable to point out any errors in my reasoning

Or perhaps my errors are sooo obvious that any good old sKeptic can point them out? Maybe the errors in my thinking are soooo obvious that you really cannot be pestered to point them out?

Indulge me. Point out anything I have said whhich is incorrect. Anything at all. I give you my absolute word that if you convince me that I'm incorrect, I will readily admit it on here. Let me be quite explicit when I say that I would never continue to defend a position that I feel is no longer correct; it simply isn't in my nature.

I await with baited breath.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian but edited by me for concision.
Pathetic self-aggrandizing fantasies.

You want examples of you being stupid and ignorant? Try reading this thread, or any thread on which you've posted your drivel.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Interesting Ian admits to being wrong --- an example of humility to us all.

I explain all this in the other thread once it was explained to me that logically impossible does not equate to zero probability. I understood what they were saying, but then they couldn't understand that zero probability does mean impossible, even though not logically impossible. LMAO

I guess the reason that they "couldn't understand" this is that it's rubbish.

So, it's possible that an event which has zero probability of occurring to occur anyway? You really want to maintain this?

Yup.

If by possible you do not mean logically possible, but something which can actually happen in the real world, then explain how an event with zero proability of occurring can occur anyway.

If we have an infinite number of equally likely possibilities, and one of them occurs.

(Take your own example of a genuine random number generator. When it produces a number, that number comes up with probability zero.)

Ummm . .yes. I know this.

 

[Dr Adequate]

More humility from the Interesting One

I stopped doing mathematics at the age of 16.

I've never done calculus.

I explain all this in the other thread once it was explained to me that logically impossible does not equate to zero probability. I understood what they were saying, but then they couldn't understand that zero probability does mean impossible, even though not logically impossible. LMAO

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Interesting Ian admits to being wrong --- an example of humility to us all.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I explain all this in the other thread once it was explained to me that logically impossible does not equate to zero probability. I understood what they were saying, but then they couldn't understand that zero probability does mean impossible, even though not logically impossible. LMAO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I guess the reason that they "couldn't understand" this is that it's rubbish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So, it's possible that an event which has zero probability of occurring to occur anyway? You really want to maintain this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Yup.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If by possible you do not mean logically possible, but something which can actually happen in the real world, then explain how an event with zero proability of occurring can occur anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dr Adequate
If we have an infinite number of equally likely possibilities, and one of them occurs.

(Take your own example of a genuine random number generator. When it produces a number, that number comes up with probability zero.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Ummm . .yes. I know this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this is supposed to constitute an example of where I'm wrong, I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken.

We can go through it though if you wish:

First of all explain to me what you believe impossible means, and then explain to me what you believe logically impossible means. Do you think they mean the same?

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian:

Indulge me. Point out anything I have said whhich is incorrect. Anything at all. I give you my absolute word that if you convince me that I'm incorrect, I will readily admit it on here. Let me be quite explicit when I say that I would never continue to defend a position that I feel is no longer correct; it simply isn't in my nature.

Well, there's this:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian:

I await with baited breath.

The correct word is "bated."

I grant that's not what you meant, and I have seen several skeptics use the same spelling so I won't really hold this against you.


But then there's this, which has been addressed:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian:

Similar reasoning makes the chance of me being born so incredibly close to zero probability, that effectively it could not have occurred. Yet here I am. Therefore I cannot be simply the product of a sperm and egg. You see?

You are saying this:

1. The chance of X was almost BUT NOT QUITE zero.

2. X happened.

3. Therefore, magic.

I have three objections to this:

1. According to your own posts elsewhere in this thread, the only thing impossible about a nearly BUT NOT QUITE zero probability event is the prediction of it, not its actual occurence. Unless you can show me that someone predicted Interesting Ian prior to your occurence, your own logic throws this out.

2. Almost BUT NOT QUITE ZERO is exactly that. This has been repeatedly explained to you; you choose to dismiss it and equate almost zero with actual zero.

3. Even ignoring the first two objections, there is absolutely no reason to invoke the Ian of the Gaps fallacy. You don't understand how you could possibly have come about therefore your worldview is correct.

Balderdash.

This is not as complex as you enjoy making it.

Your "proofs" are not as solid as you pretend.

And I predict you will obfuscate some more to protect your ego.

Could be wrong, though.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Well, there's this:




The correct word is "bated."

I grant that's not what you meant, and I have seen several skeptics use the same spelling so I won't really hold this against you.

Yes. But I meant my arguments on this topic.

But then there's this, which has been addressed:




You are saying this:

1. The chance of X was almost BUT NOT QUITE zero.

2. X happened.

3. Therefore, magic.

Magic???

I have three objections to this:

1. According to your own posts elsewhere in this thread, the only thing impossible about a nearly BUT NOT QUITE zero probability event is the prediction of it, not its actual occurence. Unless you can show me that someone predicted Interesting Ian prior to your occurence, your own logic throws this out.

I already anticipated this objection. I repeat with added emphais for the crucial word:

"And also it is not of course possible for any special sequence of numbers to have been randomly generated i.e after the number has been generated it would not be possible (although it would be logically possible) for it to exactly equal, say, pi.

Similar reasoning makes the chance of me being born so incredibly close to zero probability, that effectively it could not have occurred. Yet here I am. Therefore I cannot be simply the product of a sperm and egg. You see?

And similar reasoning applies to bridge hands. It is true that any bridge hand is as likely as any other. But this misunderstands the point when I say that each hand consisting of an entire suit is so vanishingly small that effectively it couldn't really happen".

2. Almost BUT NOT QUITE ZERO is exactly that. This has been repeatedly explained to you; you choose to dismiss it and equate almost zero with actual zero.

I agree that it's not impossible. This is why I said it effectively couldn't happen. You know, like the translocation of the car.

3. Even ignoring the first two objections, there is absolutely no reason to invoke the Ian of the Gaps fallacy. You don't understand how you could possibly have come about therefore your worldview is correct.

I never said that.

 

[Throg]

And similar reasoning applies to bridge hands. It is true that any bridge hand is as likely as any other. But this misunderstands the point when I say that each hand consisting of an entire suit is so vanishingly small that effectively it couldn't really happen".

Given that you accept that the various hands which may be dealt have an equal likelihood isn't the only difference between the two types of hand that you ascribe meaning to one hand and not to the other?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Given that you accept that the various hands which may be dealt have an equal likelihood isn't the only difference between the two types of hand that you ascribe meaning to one hand and not to the other?

yes

 

[Throg]

yes

Then would it be the case that a hand that it is possible to receive in bridge, in virtue of it's meaninglessness be impossible to receive in a different game where that particular hand has meaning?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Then would it be the case that a hand that it is possible to receive in bridge, in virtue of it's meaninglessness be impossible to receive in a different game where that particular hand has meaning?

All bridge hands have an equal chance of occurring. Look, I do not say it is impossible, I was simply stating that I reckoned that if a bridge hand consisted of all the 4 suits, then the cards most probably weren't shuffled correctly.

This is getting tedious.

 

[Throg]

All bridge hands have an equal chance of occurring. Look, I do not say it is impossible, I was simply stating that I reckoned that if a bridge hand consisted of all the 4 suits, then the cards most probably weren't shuffled correctly.

This is getting tedious.

No, I believe you said it wouldn't happen.

 

[Interesting Ian]

No, I believe you said it wouldn't happen.

Well yes, it wouldn't. I read the odds are 2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,559,999 to 1 against. What do you think?

 

[vbloke]

I may be mistaken here, but zero (in absolute terms) means zero - 0 - no way - nada.
a statisitcal zero still has a possibility of happening, depending on the method used of calculating the statistic.
If I took a sample of 2 people, both of them male and asked "are you female?", then the statistical likelyhood of any of the people polled being female is zero.
If I took the same census, but applied it to 1,000,000 people of whom 999,999 were male, there is still a zero statistical chance of being female, but IT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[Throg]

Well yes, it wouldn't. I read the odds are 2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,559,999 to 1 against. What do you think?

You have allowed that the odds are identical whether the cards are significant to you or not. You have also stated that the insignificant hand can be dealt but the significant hand cannot be dealt. Given that the significance/insignificance of the hand of cards is entirely dependent on the arbitrary rules of significance which you apply at the time the cards are revealed to you, the logical corollory of your statements is that you believe whether or not it is possible for a particular hand of cards to be dealt is entirely a matter of the aribtrary rules you apply in determining significance. Is that your position? If it is not, I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to point out the flaw in my reasoning.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Re: Re: Interesting Ian admits to being wrong --- an example of humility to us all.

If this is supposed to constitute an example of where I'm wrong, I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken.

You start off asserting one thing, you end up agreeing with the complete opposite. Looks like you were wrong to me, and everyone else reading the thread --- except you, in your pathetic little fantasy world.

First of all explain to me what you believe impossible means, and then explain to me what you believe logically impossible means.

I don't see what this has to do with your stupid blunders in probability theory, but since you ask:

Impossible: not possible.
Logically impossible: not possible because self-contradictory.

Please explain what this has to do with your ignorance of probability theory.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Interesting Ian admits to being wrong --- an example of humility to us all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If this is supposed to constitute an example of where I'm wrong, I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You start off asserting one thing, you end up agreeing with the complete opposite. Looks like you were wrong to me, and everyone else reading the thread --- except you, in your pathetic little fantasy world.

Which 2 statements of mine contradict each other? Please quote them and explain precisely how they contradict each other. Your other quotes of me do not reveal any contradiction so far as I am able to understand.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all explain to me what you believe impossible means, and then explain to me what you believe logically impossible means.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see what this has to do with your stupid blunders in probability theory, but since you ask:

Please name any of these blunders I have made!

What the hell is your problem?? You keep saying I've made stupid blunders, but are unable to name any of them???

Please name any of these blunders you unbelievable stupid idiot!!

You're a doctor? A doctor?? You should be sacked.

Impossible: not possible.
Logically impossible: not possible because self-contradictory.

Please explain what this has to do with your ignorance of probability theory.

Now, with this impossible, logically impossible question we are addressing your stupidities.

Your definitions are correct.

Now lets go back to what was said before:

II
So, it's possible that an event which has zero probability of occurring to occur anyway?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr A
Yup.

An event of zero probability cannot happen i.e if we have a specific number in mind between 0-1 which has an "infinite number" of digits after the decimal point, then that number cannot possibly be the one which will be chosen.

Now, the fact that such a specific number is randomly chosen does not alter this fact. I realise it's extremely difficult to understand. What I'm saying is that as a future event a specific number cannot happen. We are misled if, after a particular number has been chosen, we think to ourselves "well this number has been chosen, so it is possible I could have had it in mind or chosen it beforehand". It's a mistake to think this. It is logically possible for say something like pi - 3 to transpire, but it is not possible! And if you say "well some number has to be chosen, why not a specific one I have in mind", it's because there are an infinite number of numbers, and 1/infinity = zero. That make a specific number impossible to transpire even though not logically impossible. The fact that some specific number does indeed transpire, does not alter the argument.

Now who's making the stupid blunders?? (to be fair on you though, no-one else in the other thread seemed to understand this -- at least the people I was arguing against).

 

[Garrette]

Originally postd by Interesting Ian:

Magic???

Yes. Magic.

You say you couldn't possibly be the product of sperm and egg yet you exist.

Which implies that you believe something in addition to sperm and egg brought you into existence. (Unless you don't believe you exist.)

You do not define the something else in this thread, but from your general (and shifting) stance on this forum I assume you equate it with the same something that you believe creates consciousness.

All of which is just saying: I don't understand this so it's magic.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian:

"And also it is not of course possible for any special sequence of numbers to have been randomly generated i.e after the number has been generated it would not be possible (although it would be logically possible) for it to exactly equal, say, pi.

As Throg has made clear, this is just you ascribing an arbitrary significance that does not, in a statistical sense, exist.

But even if the significance were not arbitrary, it is still after the fact in the case of you being born. This does not argue my objection away.

It obfuscates and ignores.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian:

I agree that it's not impossible. This is why I said it effectively couldn't happen. You know, like the translocation of the car.

It truly astounds me, Ian.

You so obviously have a brain capable of impressive and intricate machinations, yet you so blindly adhere to contradictions and so persistently argue by proclamation that I wonder that you must surely be the greatest troll in internet history.

Then again, the blindness and proclaiming are so consistent that I wonder that you must surely believe what you argue.

Do you really see no problem with this statement of yours I have quoted?