I'm afraid I don't really follow what you've posted either warpus.
How do we determine expected value without probability?
How do we determine expected value without probability?
Did God cough hard at the crucial moment?
- Thread starter bathsheba666
- Start date
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
We determine relative value. I think.
Something exists, but we don't know how often. What is the chance it exists uniquely versus the chance it's a result of a process which may happen more often.
Something exists, but we don't know how often. What is the chance it exists uniquely versus the chance it's a result of a process which may happen more often.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Oh that reminds me.
If it's far more likely for an even unlikely event to occur more than just exactly once, what about me?
Does this mean there are other instances of me wandering about somewhere on the Earth?
I've heard that no-one is really as unusual as they think, so can I get to meet all these other me's?
Maybe all the me's could get together and confuse people even more. What do you think? Scary, eh?
If it's far more likely for an even unlikely event to occur more than just exactly once, what about me?
Does this mean there are other instances of me wandering about somewhere on the Earth?
I've heard that no-one is really as unusual as they think, so can I get to meet all these other me's?
Maybe all the me's could get together and confuse people even more. What do you think? Scary, eh?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
We aren't talking about individual life here.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
You have a specific poo with all the molecules arranged in that formation only once in your life.
You do not poo once in your life.
A specific event or the process which causes the event.
You do not poo once in your life.
A specific event or the process which causes the event.
There is no way of calculating that without some information about the event.
I would argue in the case of intelligent life evolving we know enough about the variables involved to make an estimate of the probability and therefore work out some expected values, but I don't see how we can jump to the latter if we claim to know nothing of the former.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
You don't determine expected value. You determine the probability of the probability of it appearing X number of times. So for example, you ask the question: "What's the probability that P(x=1) = 100%?" P(x=1) meaning "The probability of x occurring exactly once"
In essence, the probability of something occurring once might be unknown, but the probability of it occurring twice is unknown as well. The probability of it occurring thrice is unknown as well, and so on.
Since we don't know any of these probabilities, P(P(x=1)=100) < P(P(x>1)=100)
since P(P(x>1)=100%) = P(P(x=2)=100%) + P(P(x=3)=100%) + P(P(x=4)=100%) + .... P(P(x=n)=100%)
Change the question a bit. What's the probability that something happens exactly twice? What's the probability of something happening exactly thrice? Four times? What's the probability of intelligence arising exactly 581,582,518 times? Not knowing any constituent probabilities, the only thing you can assume is that a range will be more likely than an exact value of x, especially an all inclusive range that includes all other possibilities.
The exactly n number of times is the key. You're comparing an exact value to a range. You're comparing x=1 to all other values of x.. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10, and so on.
This will break down a bit if you know any of the values to plug in. Since we have no idea, all we can conclude is that it's just more likely for this event to have occurred elsewhere as well. Or to be more precise, it's more probable that the probability of it occurring exactly once is 0.
I'd put this into proper math form if I could, but I need to get back to work. I'm willing to clear up any of this, but I'm afraid that will probably have to wait until tomorrow.
In essence, the probability of something occurring once might be unknown, but the probability of it occurring twice is unknown as well. The probability of it occurring thrice is unknown as well, and so on.
Since we don't know any of these probabilities, P(P(x=1)=100) < P(P(x>1)=100)
since P(P(x>1)=100%) = P(P(x=2)=100%) + P(P(x=3)=100%) + P(P(x=4)=100%) + .... P(P(x=n)=100%)
Change the question a bit. What's the probability that something happens exactly twice? What's the probability of something happening exactly thrice? Four times? What's the probability of intelligence arising exactly 581,582,518 times? Not knowing any constituent probabilities, the only thing you can assume is that a range will be more likely than an exact value of x, especially an all inclusive range that includes all other possibilities.
The exactly n number of times is the key. You're comparing an exact value to a range. You're comparing x=1 to all other values of x.. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10, and so on.
This will break down a bit if you know any of the values to plug in. Since we have no idea, all we can conclude is that it's just more likely for this event to have occurred elsewhere as well. Or to be more precise, it's more probable that the probability of it occurring exactly once is 0.
I'd put this into proper math form if I could, but I need to get back to work. I'm willing to clear up any of this, but I'm afraid that will probably have to wait until tomorrow.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
I'm not sure I follow. I do agree that poos are both unique events and things that I've had one or two in my life so far.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the possibility of extraterrestial life or the existence of dopel-gangers.
Still, never mind me. I never did understand probabilities.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Which is why it's not a definitive statement.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
It had to do with the specific you you referred to in contrast to life.
I just noticed though it seems to be about intelligent life, and I'm not sure Warpus was talking about that. I was talking just life life.
So are you saying that something we know nothing about is more likely to occur more than once than it is to occur merely once, simply because {1} is a smaller set than {n∈N:n≠1}?
EDIT: If so, I don't buy it. If we know nothing about the probabilities involved then we know nothing about the values involved. If skirts very close to the old P(God existing)=0.5 argument I had with someone here a while ago.
Of course, I might just be failing to understand. Bear in mind I spent my day teaching kids how to calculate the probability of rolling a 2 on a dice!
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Proper form is not necessary. The key is the distinction between a large but finite number and a true infinity. If you assume an infinite universe. It follows that the probability an exerimental result of one and only one is infinitely small. That is not hard to follow.
There are issues. For example, certain physical constants need to remain constant. In an infinte universe, that is not a given. We live a fairly flat space curvature. Is that important? Many potential factors are simply unknown.
What we do know is that intelligent life is not close enough to hear. That is significant. The whole Fermi paradox is another thread, but it is not unreasonable to project our life form throughout the galaxy inside 100,000 years.
I say again, it is not unreasonable to assume we are alone.
J
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Equally one could say it's not unreasonable to assume we aren't, either. Or haven't been, or won't be.
Maybe, in fact, it's unreasonable to assume anything about something we've no knowledge of. We can't even be sure that aliens aren't already here. And posting on CFC.
Come on! Own up. Whoever you are!
Maybe it's me. And I've forgotten my origins. I wouldn't put it past the bounds of possibility. I've forgotten no end of stuff.
Maybe, in fact, it's unreasonable to assume anything about something we've no knowledge of. We can't even be sure that aliens aren't already here. And posting on CFC.
Come on! Own up. Whoever you are!
Maybe it's me. And I've forgotten my origins. I wouldn't put it past the bounds of possibility. I've forgotten no end of stuff.
Oh, we could very easily be alone within our light cone. That's a socially significant question. Whether we're 'alone' alone is theologically significant though.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Predicting our future in a timespan of 100,000 years may be more of an unknown than the chances of intelligent life occuring elsewhere.
I personally see the shear scale of the universe as too large to make this likely.
"Alone" is relative. ET could easily be too far away to interact with.
Similar threads
