14 replies to this topic

[mmiguel]

Wow, so the big conspiracy is that this guy just changed the headers on Pascal's wager.

If scientists listen to him then all scientists should believe in God and be religious.

Awesome! I was looking for an example of this in religion, but couldn't find it -- didn't know the right search term.

[mmiguel]

The advisor said the probability was 15%.

Spoiler for

i know i know.... it doesn't matter what the phony says... the real probability is whether or not he is right.
the 15% is just there to distract people - so that they think they are considering probability, but in actuality they are not considering the right one.
probably not something that people on this site would fall for, but i posted this not really to challenge you fine folks, but to think about things.
i feel like the video used a lot of distraction, and disarms the viewer into thinking that no matter what numbers they put in, the videomaker will be right.

people who enjoy logic puzzles are not likely to be fooled by distractive techniques though

[mmiguel]

My answer would depend on a clarification of the OP. But I think I should put the clarification questions in a spoiler because I feel like understanding what clarification questions need to be asked is really the heart of the riddle.

Spoiler for

When you open the problem by saying that this happens in the real world, meaning that no magic, wizardry or other funny business exists, do you mean to imply that we must also account for the possibility that the astrological prediction of Ethos may be wrong despite the fact that he's never been wrong before? Also, when it says that the king makes decisions based only on logic and not using his gut, and that he knows nothing of the stars, does that imply that neither he nor any of his advisers would consider the possibility that Ethos is wrong? If he can consider the possibility that Ethos is wrong, is there any extra data available that he could use to estimate Bayesian probabilities of Ethos really being an infallible astrologer based on the information that the king has at his disposal (like the number of predictions he's made correctly before, the probability that those predictions would be correct based purely on chance, whether or not Ethos was selected from a pool of potential advisers by having the potential advisers all make predictions on events and then weeding out adviser candidates who made a wrong prediction until just Ethos was left?) And would the king would be willing to make a baseline estimate of the probability that astrology is true in the absence of any of the data mentioned above?

As for the video, curr3nt and Rob_Gandy already made the main points about not accounting for non-extreme cases, and not accounting for the possibility that interventions will fail. I would also add the need to account for the possibility that environmental destruction through pollution and whatnot might not be the factor that ultimately determines when humanity devolves into a mess of savages barely able to survive. World War III, comet collisions, and alien invasions might all happen first. In fact, excessive pollution might be just the thing that kills off a mutating multidrug-resistant bacteria before it fully evolves and spreads to cause a plague that makes the Black Death look like a case of the sniffles.

Spoiler for

yeah that is pretty much the heart of what i concluded from thinking about this ---> there is another probability that should always be considered whenever anything is heard --- what is the probability that everything that i am hearing is correct?

this may seem obvious to always assess this probability, but i felt that the video maker was able to skillfully disarm the viewer into forgetting this fundamental suspicion.

if something is completely outrageous - like a bunny suit stopping a plague, then it might not even be worth considering as a possibility. if you do consider it as a possibility, they could lie about the numbers in such a way that it makes it seem like you should do whatever they suggest. you would only be safe if you make your own judgment about the probability of them telling the truth to offset the effect on the expected value from whatever numbers they throw at you. what if you don't go low enough?

how do we determine this probability when we make conclusions about things?
is it a judgment call?
does it come from the gut?
maybe the king is too scared to make that leap.

this probability is certainly subjective, and changes from case to case;

stuff to think about, if anyone is still reading

Edited by mmiguel, 20 September 2012 - 04:14 AM.

[TheChad08]

Really? I'd say the opposite. In fact, I think I did...(in an essay I wrote in college). One of the major problems about Pascal's conclusions is that he doesn't take into account all the possibilities. To summarize, his argument is:

Probability God exists > 0
Amount of happiness you gain from following God = infinity
Hence expected value of following God is infinite happiness at a relatively small cost in this lifetime


One of my arguments was:

Probability that a different god exists, that will condemn you to infinite suffering if you follow the wrong god > 0
(or multiple such gods, for that matter)
Hence countering the infinite benefit of following God (the Christian God if I remember correctly, which was what Pascal was espousing)

You are assuming that god requires you to follow his religion.
There is also the assumption that faith is required for access to heaven, not your mortal actions.
Don't forget to include that assumption that we aren't ignorant to our punishment/reward.
What good is heaven/hell if we aren't aware of our eternal bliss/damnation?

I know Pascal's wager and I'm still an atheist

[Yoruichi-san]

You are assuming that god requires you to follow his religion.
There is also the assumption that faith is required for access to heaven, not your mortal actions.
Don't forget to include that assumption that we aren't ignorant to our punishment/reward.
What good is heaven/hell if we aren't aware of our eternal bliss/damnation?

I know Pascal's wager and I'm still an atheist

Hey! Don't attribute Pascal's arguments to me . I was summarizing Pascal's argument, as I understand it.

Obviously, from the fact I argued against Pascal's Wager, I disagree with him . And yes, as I mentioned, that was only one of my arguments, the one that was pertinent in regards to "considering all the possibilities", which my post was in response to.

Edited by Yoruichi-san, 20 September 2012 - 06:24 AM.