Magic is provably real.

[Traitorfish]

Your premise is that either the deer will walk by or that Adam and Eve will beget the entire human race, that one of these two things has to happen. In reality, we know that the likelihood of either happening is very small, and the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of neither thing happening, and there's nothing in the scenario that contradicts this. That's what Manfred is driving out.

 

[Lohrenswald]

I can say that I'm absolutely going to single handily eradicate the HIV-virus by Friday unless a clown falls through the ceiling within the next 5 minutes.

But neither is going to happen

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That's actually the correct response, but it is not conveyed by saying "the problem assume magic is true." Which is what you did.

So my response is both correct and not true?

Deer can get wounded. They can also walk by Adam. It's not a stretch to suggest that one might do both.

This is probably the one thing we can agree on. Not sure why you're saying this though as I never refuted that.

I don't understand your argument. Please stop using math if you're tying to explain something.

This is just priceless. I want to get it printed on a t-shirt.

When did I say that a deer had to stroll by? The whole thing is about probabilities.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole assertion that Adam can "magically" force a wounded deer to walk by simply by making his decision? If so... that's when you said that a deer had to stroll by. As in "if Adam makes this decision then a deer must stroll by". This is how I am reading your initial question/puzzle/thing.

Given that you can't comprehend that, I'm going to dismiss the previous argument from you on the grounds this is a very easy to understand point.

Given that you told me not to use maths when answering a question about probabilities, I believe I shall do the same

 

[Mouthwash]

Your premise is that either the deer will walk by or that Adam and Eve will beget the entire human race, that one of these two things has to happen. In reality, we know that the likelihood of either happening is very small, and the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of neither thing happening, and there's nothing in the scenario that contradicts this. That's what Manfred is driving out.

Very badly. It's true that if I'm in the apparent position of being the first out of billions, I'm likely to be wrong on that score. But it's also true that being in that position is possible. The correct response is that the problem switches a subjective viewpoint (Adam believes he is the first) with an objective viewpoint (Adam is the first), and weighs that against a subjective anthropic anomaly.

So my response is both correct and not true?

Your original response didn't make any sense, regardless of whether you were driving at the correct solution.

This is probably the one thing we can agree on. Not sure why you're saying this though as I never refuted that.

You said, "This obviously cannot be described as a low probability and, unless Adam and Eve are living in the midst of a swarm of accident-prone deer, we know this isn't a realistic probability to assign to this."

This is just priceless. I want to get it printed on a t-shirt.

It's intellectual property bro.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole assertion that Adam can "magically" force a wounded deer to walk by simply by making his decision? If so... that's when you said that a deer had to stroll by. As in "if Adam makes this decision then a deer must stroll by". This is how I am reading your initial question/puzzle/thing.

The problems deal in nothing but probabilities. The part about Adam 'forcing' a deer to walk by is simply a way of stating that his actions made the event overwhelmingly probable.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Very badly.

You seem to be taking this very personally. Still, at least you're being so nice about it

Your original response didn't make any sense, regardless of whether you were driving at the correct solution.

Yes it did. Your original proposition makes no sense.

You said, "This obviously cannot be described as a low probability and, unless Adam and Eve are living in the midst of a swarm of accident-prone deer, we know this isn't a realistic probability to assign to this."

This isn't me saying it can't happen. It's me saying it most likely doesn't have a >50% chance of happening. Especially as you've already stated it has a "low probability".

The problems deal in nothing but probabilities. The part about Adam 'forcing' a deer to walk by is simply a way of stating that his actions made the event overwhelmingly probable.

But his actions do no such thing, you're just stating that as a fact and not even explaining why you think that. Which you need to do because it isn't true. I've already tried to explain why but for some reason I'm not allowed to talk about even fairly simple maths while discussion a question about probability, which is an insane restriction for you to apply.

 

[Mouthwash]

This isn't me saying it can't happen. It's me saying it most likely doesn't have a >50% chance of happening. Especially as you've already stated it has a "low probability".

Why on Earth not? If weighed against the probability of 1/7000000000, it seems fairly likely.

But his actions do no such thing, you're just stating that as a fact and not even explaining why you think that. Which you need to do because it isn't true.

I know it isn't true. I'm saying that ASSUMING THAT IT IS, it only requires the deer to have a high probability of appearing, not a certainty (which is what you said was impossible).

I've already tried to explain why but for some reason I'm not allowed to talk about even fairly simple maths while discussion a question about probability, which is an insane restriction for you to apply.

It's theoretical question and can be puzzled out without using mathematical notation whatsoever. Others have done so.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Why on Earth not? If weighed against the probability of 1/7000000000, it seems fairly likely.

You can't make an event any more or less likely simply by mentally comparing it to some other event. And it can't simltaneously be a low probability and a high probability. This doesn't make sense. I also think the 1/7000000000 probability you're assigning to the other eventuality is rather naive as well.

I know it isn't true. I'm saying that ASSUMING THAT IT IS

Well then this means the though experiment has no bearing on reality because the rules don't match the rules of reality. Therefore it can't prove anything about the real world.
Maybe your intention was never to do that, but the OP and thread title imply that it is.

 

[Mouthwash]

You can't make an event any more or less likely simply by mentally comparing it to some other event.

But the point was that the event was contingent on another event not happening.

And it can't simltaneously be a low probability and a high probability. This doesn't make sense.

It has a low base probability but a high probability compared to an even more unlikely event. At this point you're just willfully trying to find semantic loopholes in what I said.

I also think the 1/7000000000 probability you're assigning to the other eventuality is rather naive as well.

Seven billion humans. Actually much more, since that's not counting all the humans who have died or haven't been born.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

But the point was that the event was contingent on another event not happening.

It's not though. Whether or not Adam and Eve get down and dirty may well be contingent on whether or not a deer walks past, but the opposite isn't true at all. A wounded deer may or may not walk past, but the probability of that happening doesn't change no matter what Adam and Eve decide. If you think it does then you have to explain why you think that as it goes against all known causality.

It has a low base probability but a high probability compared to an even more unlikely event. At this point you're just willfully trying to find semantic loopholes in what I said.

I'm not at all, it's just that you seemingly don't understand how probability works and have outright banned me from even trying to explain it. What you're saying is objectively wrong, it's not semantics at all. Yes, it has a higher probability of happening than a more unlikely event, but the actual probability doesn't change at all, let alone become almost a certainty as you seem to think it does.

Seven billion humans. Actually much more, since that's not counting all the humans who have died or haven't been born.

That doesn't mean that the odds of that happening is 1 in seven billion. That's naive reasoning. But as I keep saying, putting an exact figure on that probability is irrelevant anyway because the deer (and indeed the universe) doesn't know or care about it.

 

[tetley]

I can say that I'm absolutely going to single handily eradicate the HIV-virus by Friday unless a clown falls through the ceiling within the next 5 minutes.

But neither is going to happen

If ever there was a time for a meme, this is it.

 

[Mouthwash]

It's not though. Whether or not Adam and Eve get down and dirty may well be contingent on whether or not a deer walks past, but the opposite isn't true at all. A wounded deer may or may not walk past, but the probability of that happening doesn't change no matter what Adam and Eve decide. If you think it does then you have to explain why you think that as it goes against all known causality.

Causality is dead.

I'm not at all, it's just that you seemingly don't understand how probability works and have outright banned me from even trying to explain it.

I haven't banned you from anything. I simply can't apply mathematical notation very well.

What you're saying is objectively wrong, it's not semantics at all.

Sure, my argument is wrong; I was referring to your particular statement, "it can't simultaneously be a low probability and a high probability" as semantical and diversionary. I'm going to stop responding if you continue using smoke-and-mirror tactics.

Yes, it has a higher probability of happening than a more unlikely event, but the actual probability doesn't change at all, let alone become almost a certainty as you seem to think it does.

But it's a subjective probability. If I observe that pebbles and boulders fall at the same speed, then Aristotle's theory of gravity decreases in probability while Newton's rises- but only from my frame of reference. Objectively it's either one or the other that was true the whole time.

That doesn't mean that the odds of that happening is 1 in seven billion. That's naive reasoning.

It's an extremely rough estimate. That's because precision isn't needed here at all. Because this is a thought experiment.

 

[Kyriakos]

Why on Earth not? If weighed against the probability of 1/7000000000, it seems fairly likely.

Ehm, Addam's probability of being the first of the human species isn't 1/ how many humans there exist now. That is <just wrong>. If there was no 1 or 2 there aren't any following either. Probability theory (at least dealing with something like what you refer to, ie ties to observed probability in the ACTUAL world, not just in a math system) is about calculations which supposedly are of a boundless number of attempts/positions. As has been pointed out to you already this is why you can roll a dice 10 times and (in practice; an actual event in the external world) have 10 sixes. The probability -tied to external observation- of a 6 in one roll is 1/6 IF AND ONLY IF the number of actual total rolls of the dice is practically infinite. Ie it would be strange if one rolls a dice three trillion times, and he only gets sixes.
Other probability problems are more set cause they don't have any factor other than completing and variating a set. To use an example of different type of probability calculation, ie one not really tied to actual world events, and one tied: Whereas throwing a dice involves physics, setting 3 actual objects A,B,C in 2 actual positions, does not, there are only the variations AB, BA, AC, CA, BC, CB.

That doesn't even take into account the gaping hole of using "first in a group" for a group that is not tied to a decision-maker, cause probabilities tend to not be about decisions of the object in the progression. You could also ask what magic the dice employs if it gets sentient and at the same time bizarrely is to be taken as just a game theory parameter.

Even more importantly, though: the number of humans is by no means something having to be a number that in any way is relevant or even a part of a cosmic reality. Much like the font you use on your computer has no bearing on how loudly some person is yelling on the street.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Causality is dead.

As silly as that whole idea is, it at least makes some sort of sense. Your OP doesn't (at least not to me)

I haven't banned you from anything. I simply can't apply mathematical notation very well.

Well why not ask me to explain it then (it wouldn't have taken very long) instead of just telling me not to use it?

Sure, my argument is wrong;

Then I'm really struggling to understand the point of this thread.

I was referring to your particular statement, "it can't simultaneously be a low probability and a high probability" as semantical and diversionary. I'm going to stop responding if you continue using smoke-and-mirror tactics.

There's nothing diversionary about it! What do you think my actual goal is here that I would want to be diversionary and be using any sort of "tactics"? You said this in the OP:

Adam can then put his feet up and rationally expect with near certainty that a wounded dear will soon stroll by

Having re-read it I will admit that you didn't directly say that a wounded deer walking past had a low probability (maybe you said that in a later post), but it is definitely implied that it is. I mean, if it wasn't there'd be no need for this scheme of theirs in the first place. So you HAVE claimed both these things. Me pointing that out is me pointing out the contradiction in what you are saying, it is most definitely not smoke and mirrors.

But it's a subjective probability. If I observe that pebbles and boulders fall at the same speed, then Aristotle's theory of gravity decreases in probability while Newton's rises- but only from my frame of reference. Objectively it's either one or the other that was true the whole time.

This is not analogous at all. Rocks and pebbles fall however they fall regardless of what you think about how they fall. Your theories don't change anything (as you just said). This is quite obviously not the same as making a wounded deer walk past just by performing a thought experiment. That would be an actual objective change in reality. Can you not see that these are not the same thing at all?

It's an extremely rough estimate. That's because precision isn't needed here at all. Because this is a thought experiment.

I agree that precision is not needed here, but not for the reason you state.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well why not ask me to explain it then (it wouldn't have taken very long) instead of just telling me not to use it?

That seems like a corollary of me not understanding notation, unless you're deliberately dragging out the argument.

Then I'm really struggling to understand the point of this thread.

To see what thoughts people might have in regards to the problem (and anthropic reasoning in general). Correctness isn't a useful demarcation of usefulness.

There's nothing diversionary about it! What do you think my actual goal is here that I would want to be diversionary and be using any sort of "tactics"? You said this in the OP:

From Adam's perspective the deer is quite likely to walk by. From an outside observer's (or an objective) perspective the odds of this occurring are the same as ever. I called it diversionary because it repackages your (already refuted) argument in a different way.

Having re-read it I will admit that you didn't directly say that a wounded deer walking past had a low probability (maybe you said that in a later post), but it is definitely implied that it is. I mean, if it wasn't there'd be no need for this scheme of theirs in the first place. So you HAVE claimed both these things. Me pointing that out is me pointing out the contradiction in what you are saying, it is most definitely not smoke and mirrors.

This is more of the same.

This is not analogous at all. Rocks and pebbles fall however they fall regardless of what you think about how they fall.

Of course they do. Since I can't perceive the thing-in-itself, I must assign probabilities to it.

Your theories don't change anything (as you just said). This is quite obviously not the same as making a wounded deer walk past just by performing a thought experiment. That would be an actual objective change in reality. Can you not see that these are not the same thing at all?

Nope. Look at it this way: Adam has extremely atypical observations. Since it isn't guaranteed that he is the first in a race numbering billions- but he easily could be- he can make it so that the source of his atypicality is that he is just lucky enough for odd things to happen like wounded deer walking past day after day. This can only be done from his perspective; never an outside perspective. Anyone else would rationally conclude that these things wouldn't happen.

I agree that precision is not needed here, but not for the reason you state.

Do you have a reason why, other than picking a fight where no rational person would?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Load of aggressive nonsense

Go forth and multiply my friend really, really can't be doing with your attitude.

Tell you what pal - you're right. Obviously you're completely right about everything because you say you are. Obviously you've refuted everything I've said because you say you have. Having established these as facts, it is therefore obvious that my only possible motivation for continuing to disagree is because I am irrational and that I wish to use diversionary tactics to just have my sport with you. This is definitely what is going on. You are correct in all matters.

Can I do anything else for you before I leave? Shine your shoes perhaps? Cook you a meal? No? I'll be on my way then.

 

[timtofly]

^A start of clarification. What is SSA? It would be nice if we could translate the reasoning into terms not involving the ambiguity of the Adam story. Such terms can be formed by just explaining what SSA/class of observers and tied notions mean.

edit: although, reading a bit of that page, and coming across so inelegantly (or rather hideously) named terms and phrases such as:
-The principal principle
-gedanken
-"Here it looks as if the couple is in one and the same act performing both psychokinesis and backward causation. No mean feat before breakfast."

i am not very inclined to read more from this person

^ yet you still post?

Self Sampling Assumption

The chapter is described as a wrecking ball.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Why shouldn't I? I don't mean Mouthwash; i mean i am not inclined to read more of the philosopher Perf linked to, due to his way of writing. It is true that i may not have identified his point of focus clearly, yet that is outside the scope of his use of phraseology. I generally am very much against philosophical jargon of that variety (i mean neologisms or catch-phrases; not the SSA thing).
That said, i might read about the actual notion of the SSA, so as to be able to post more tied to the more specific topic.