bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:36 pm
I think it is correct to agree with the new thought experiment (because it summerize what we discussed): think of one box that is filled by a very hot stuff. You then cool the stuff until other forms from simple to complex appear. Let's say that the chance of having life is P in a given moment in one box. What is the chance of having at least one life in one of the boxes?
You're ignoring what I'm asking/requesting from you. (Hence why I said that you're just giving up on this without meeting the objections I'm forwarding.)
I am not ignoring. I argued against them. (a) for example, is not valid since we know what the initial condition was. (b) I accepted. (c) is not needed since (a) is not valid. (d) I accepted.
If you're not ignoring it, you're not at all understanding it. "(a) for example, is not valid since we know what the initial condition was" isn't addressing what I'm saying because I'm talking about a specific THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. The thought experiment wasn't about what's actually the case in the universe.
You're ignoring what I'm asking/requesting from you. (Hence why I said that you're just giving up on this without meeting the objections I'm forwarding.)
I am not ignoring. I argued against them. (a) for example, is not valid since we know what the initial condition was. (b) I accepted. (c) is not needed since (a) is not valid. (d) I accepted.
If you're not ignoring it, you're not at all understanding it. "(a) for example, is not valid since we know what the initial condition was" isn't addressing what I'm saying because I'm talking about a specific THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. The thought experiment wasn't about what's actually the case in the universe.
Ok, let's work with the thought experiment you like. The question is that what is the chance of having the life in two boxes if the chance of having the life in one box is P.
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 12:17 pm
I am not ignoring. I argued against them. (a) for example, is not valid since we know what the initial condition was. (b) I accepted. (c) is not needed since (a) is not valid. (d) I accepted.
If you're not ignoring it, you're not at all understanding it. "(a) for example, is not valid since we know what the initial condition was" isn't addressing what I'm saying because I'm talking about a specific THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. The thought experiment wasn't about what's actually the case in the universe.
Ok, let's work with the thought experiment you like. The question is that what is the chance of having the life in two boxes if the chance of having the life in one box is P.
I'd just be repeating earlier posts as I answered this already.
If you're not ignoring it, you're not at all understanding it. "(a) for example, is not valid since we know what the initial condition was" isn't addressing what I'm saying because I'm talking about a specific THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. The thought experiment wasn't about what's actually the case in the universe.
Ok, let's work with the thought experiment you like. The question is that what is the chance of having the life in two boxes if the chance of having the life in one box is P.
I'd just be repeating earlier posts as I answered this already.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 5:48 pm
Ok, let's work with the thought experiment you like. The question is that what is the chance of having the life in two boxes if the chance of having the life in one box is P.
I'd just be repeating earlier posts as I answered this already.
Which post, please? Could you please repeat?
So this began with me saying, "On my view, there's no way at all to plausibly answer such questions. I don't buy Bayesian probability. I'm skeptical even of frequentist probability as something predictive, but at least frequentist probability has empirical data behind it."
I'd just be repeating earlier posts as I answered this already.
Which post, please? Could you please repeat?
So this began with me saying, "On my view, there's no way at all to plausibly answer such questions. I don't buy Bayesian probability. I'm skeptical even of frequentist probability as something predictive, but at least frequentist probability has empirical data behind it."
Here we are talking about frequentist probability. It is the binomial distribution.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:02 pm
Which post, please? Could you please repeat?
So this began with me saying, "On my view, there's no way at all to plausibly answer such questions. I don't buy Bayesian probability. I'm skeptical even of frequentist probability as something predictive, but at least frequentist probability has empirical data behind it."
Here we are talking about frequentist probability. It is the binomial distribution.
If we're talking about frequentist probability with a thought experiment about boxes, we can't say anything, because we have no iterations to talk about.
So this began with me saying, "On my view, there's no way at all to plausibly answer such questions. I don't buy Bayesian probability. I'm skeptical even of frequentist probability as something predictive, but at least frequentist probability has empirical data behind it."
Here we are talking about frequentist probability. It is the binomial distribution.
If we're talking about frequentist probability with a thought experiment about boxes, we can't say anything, because we have no iterations to talk about.
We have two boxes that we roll the dice for them once. This is like experimenting with a single box twice.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:11 pm
Here we are talking about frequentist probability. It is the binomial distribution.
If we're talking about frequentist probability with a thought experiment about boxes, we can't say anything, because we have no iterations to talk about.
We have two boxes that we roll the dice for them once. This is like experimenting with a single box twice.
In that case we'd only be getting probabilities/frequentist data literally for dice rolls. Not for anything else.
If we're talking about frequentist probability with a thought experiment about boxes, we can't say anything, because we have no iterations to talk about.
We have two boxes that we roll the dice for them once. This is like experimenting with a single box twice.
In that case we'd only be getting probabilities/frequentist data literally for dice rolls. Not for anything else.
Yes. I roll a dice twice or roll two dices once. They are similar. The change of having the life in two boxes is bigger than the chance in one box. That I calculated it and it is obvious, there are more opportunities.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:15 pm
We have two boxes that we roll the dice for them once. This is like experimenting with a single box twice.
In that case we'd only be getting probabilities/frequentist data literally for dice rolls. Not for anything else.
Yes. I roll a dice twice or roll two dices once. They are similar. The change of having the life in two boxes is bigger than the chance in one box. That I calculated it and it is obvious, there are more opportunities.
Again, if we're using frequentist data of dice rolls, that's all it tells us--dice rolls. It says nothing whatsoever about life.
In that case we'd only be getting probabilities/frequentist data literally for dice rolls. Not for anything else.
Yes. I roll a dice twice or roll two dices once. They are similar. The change of having the life in two boxes is bigger than the chance in one box. That I calculated it and it is obvious, there are more opportunities.
Again, if we're using frequentist data of dice rolls, that's all it tells us--dice rolls. It says nothing whatsoever about life.
Of course, rolling dices say something about life.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:22 pm
Yes. I roll a dice twice or roll two dices once. They are similar. The change of having the life in two boxes is bigger than the chance in one box. That I calculated it and it is obvious, there are more opportunities.
Again, if we're using frequentist data of dice rolls, that's all it tells us--dice rolls. It says nothing whatsoever about life.
Of course, rolling dices say something about life.