## Probability

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Mike Strand
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:54 am
Location: USA

### Re: Probability

Arising_uk wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:27 am
QuantumT wrote:...
Edit:
It's been 5 days now since I wrote the above. Does nobody understand this?
I think some of us are still trying to understand where your Y and Z are?
It appears to me a more concrete example would help your readers, QuantumT. Such as, assign propositions regarding some kind of knowledge to the letters, including Y and Z, and maybe probabilities of letters pointing to (or implying or suggesting) other letters. If I get your general drift, that is.

commonsense
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

### Re: Probability

Certainly, your diagram and related rules don't mean that

p(Y and Z) = ¼

or do they?

wtf
Posts: 762
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

### Re: Probability

I should probably just stay out of this. But there are several people conducting what seem to be rational conversations regarding the nature and location and probabilities of X and Y.

But it is manifestly clear that the OP's exposition does not show any X or Y nor does the OP define them.

I pressed the OP a bit on this point and did not receive a satisfactory response.

Can any of you sane-acting responders explain to me why you would attempt to engage rationally with someone who discusses X and Y in his argument but never defines them and doesn't show them on his diagram??

Why are some of you even trying to reason yourselves about X and Y? X and Y are not defined. They are not on the diagram. There is no rational thesis being presented.

The argument of the OP is so far outside of the usual framework of an argument that I can't accord it any degree of rationality. I can't comprehend attempting to engage rationally with someone who asks you the probability of Y without telling you what Y is, and who shows you a diagram on which Y is not to be found

tl;dr: What are you all talking about? If I'm missing something here, please do let me know.

Mike Strand
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:54 am
Location: USA

### Re: Probability

wtf wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 3:48 am
Can any of you sane-acting responders explain to me why you would attempt to engage rationally with someone who discusses X and Y in his argument but never defines them and doesn't show them on his diagram??
In my case, I may not be able to claim sanity. However, given my interest in probability theory, I'm hoping that the diagram somehow represents an under-specified but interesting puzzle in that theory ... (benefit of doubt, maybe). And I have a little more time on my hands than usual ...

Belinda
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

### Re: Probability

QuantumT,
If all knowledge is symbolized by the 24 letters A-X:
That premiss is false. All knowledge is not encapsulated facts but is relationships between 'facts', and moreover those relationships are in constant states of dynamic change. 'All knowledge'is open ended without finality.

Probability is a human attempt at predicting.

commonsense
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

### Re: Probability

If all knowledge is truth, Y is truth or a subset thereof.

Impenitent
Posts: 2263
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

### Re: Probability

QuantumT wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 10:02 pm
If all knowledge is symbolized by the 24 letters A-X:

Each letter can point towards one of the 23 others and to Y.
Six of them can point to one of the 23 others and to Y and Z.

How probable is Y and Z then?

Logicly Y is the one being pointed most to.

So, if all knowledge favors Y, is Y then the truth?
Y and Z are pointless

-Imp

Arising_uk
Posts: 11771
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: Probability

You are annoying but you do always make a point.

QuantumT
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

### Re: Probability

Belinda wrote:
Sat Jul 07, 2018 4:45 pm
That premiss is false. All knowledge is not encapsulated facts but is relationships between 'facts', and moreover those relationships are in constant states of dynamic change. 'All knowledge'is open ended without finality.

Probability is a human attempt at predicting.
That's exactly what I was trying to show. With each individual item of knowledge pointing in its own direction, and none of them agreeing, it is truly dynamic. But If all items of knowledge can point in two (or more) directions, we might - might - find something true, if they agree about one of them.

Belinda
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

### Re: Probability

QuantumT wrote:
But If all items of knowledge can point in two (or more) directions, we might - might - find something true, if they agree about one of them.
The undiscovered variable then. That variable which permits cosmic order.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests