Notices
Results 1 to 86 of 86

Thread: will the sun rise tomorrow?

  1. #1 will the sun rise tomorrow? 
    Forum Freshman lince!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    28
    simple as the title stated.
    the sun rises as usual today... so far so good, how about tomorrow?

    can someone give a justification or mathematically, the probability of this event.
    i know the question can go to philosophy or sci-fiction or physics(though i don't wish to.....)
    hope the post is not a repetition in this forum.
    looking forward to your answers
    :]


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    The sun has risen each day for the 4.5 billion years the Earth has existed. In earlier times the Earth rotated more rapidly, possibly as fast as once every six hours. Let's assume four hundred days in a year as a conservative average.

    400 x 4.5 billion = 1.8 x 10^12

    If it fails to rise tomorrow then that will be once in 1.8 x 10^12 instances. It is therefore reasonable to say that the odds against the sun not rising tomorrow are at less than 1 in 1.8 x 10^12.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Paging Hume
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: will the sun rise tomorrow? 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by lince!
    simple as the title stated.
    the sun rises as usual today... so far so good, how about tomorrow?

    can someone give a justification or mathematically, the probability of this event.
    i know the question can go to philosophy or sci-fiction or physics(though i don't wish to.....)
    hope the post is not a repetition in this forum.
    looking forward to your answers
    :]
    I hope so. I really really hope so and that I am here to perceive it.

    I feel it is more the probability of will the earth complete yet another revolution. If this were not to happen we would not survive the upheaval that this would bring, The crust woud literally disintegrate - the oceans would wash across the lands and partly boil, the atmosphere - would generate super winds - All personal opinions of course, THen again it could just be cloudy.... Oh sod I see you did not want to go down this route


    There is nothing we know of anywhere near the earth that could cause this to happen in such a short space of time. I therefore venture to suggest the odds aremore remote than 1 in 1.79 *10^36/day
    Which is the mathematical probability of a whole series of events occuring within 24 hours... mostly to do with the physics of a collision and assuming there is something heading this way at close to the speed of light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman lince!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    28
    i used to suppose that maths will simplify the question.
    well, probability has made this impossible........
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    50
    There are only two possibilities. The sun will rise, or it will not. Thus the probability of tomorrow's sunrise is 1/2.
    K. Srinivasa Ramanujam
    M.S (by Research) Scholar,
    http://ramanujamblog.blogspot.com
    India
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by sramanujam
    There are only two possibilities. The sun will rise, or it will not. Thus the probability of tomorrow's sunrise is 1/2.
    That conclusion is ridiculous.

    There are three possibilities when I flip a coin, heads, tails, or landing on it's side, so the probability of heads is clearly 1/3??

    Also ridiculous. Not all possible outcomes have the same probability of occuring. Apply any statistical test to the last 100 years where the sun has risen each day and you'd have to reject the hypothesis that the probability of it not rising was greater than 1/2 (or much, much smaller).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by sramanujam
    There are only two possibilities. The sun will rise, or it will not. Thus the probability of tomorrow's sunrise is 1/2.
    Oh dear....


    Only a 50/50 chance... so according to pascal, the chances of it rising every day for the next week is 1/128.

    I think you may have missed a day at school.

    Do you also believe there is a 1/2 chance of each person in the world being hit (tomorrow) by a pink fluffy UFO?.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    50
    The question is will the sun rise or not. There's no doubt that either it will rise or it will not. There cannot be a half rise or partial rise. Only two possibilities are there. In other words if you take rising of tomorrow's sun as '1' and not rising as '0', there can only be '0' or '1'. There cannot be a 0.5 etc.
    As such, for the sun to rise, ie for a particular event to happen, probability is given by no. of events/total no. of events=1/2.

    Note: The question is very much particular about tomorrow's rise and not of next week or next years rise.
    K. Srinivasa Ramanujam
    M.S (by Research) Scholar,
    http://ramanujamblog.blogspot.com
    India
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by sramanujam
    The question is will the sun rise or not. There's no doubt that either it will rise or it will not. There cannot be a half rise or partial rise. Only two possibilities are there. In other words if you take rising of tomorrow's sun as '1' and not rising as '0', there can only be '0' or '1'. There cannot be a 0.5 etc.
    As such, for the sun to rise, ie for a particular event to happen, probability is given by no. of events/total no. of events=1/2.
    That's NOT the probability, you are talking about the possibility, there are two possibilities - true. Probability is something entirely different, you need to have facts to assess probability, like approx 50% of humans are male[fact] therefore pick a human at random and the probability of them being male is one it two. In terms of the sun, you would need to look at it's previous history. Since the sun has risen everyday for the last year, it has risen 365 out of 365 times, from this it ALWAYS rises, therefore it is a certainty, the sun will rise tomorrow.

    If there are humans, donkeys, asses, idiots, morons, freaks, thickoes, dumb-dumbs, nuts, dorks twits, and ignorant clump's of earth, What are the chances of you being human?
    Based on your concept of probability it's 11 to 1 against.

    IN fact because only humans can read this text, it is 100% certain you are human.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    sramanujam, you appear to be hijacking the identity of one of India's greatest mathematicians!

    I have just now discovered that by inadvertently mispelling his first name, the only substantial non-forum net article I wrote comes top of the Google list if you search for Srinivasar Ramanujan. I'm as pleased as punch over this, as you can imagine!

    In case this situation changes, the article is the one headed An Interesting Number.
    "It is comparatively easy to make clever guesses; indeed there are theorems, like 'Goldbach's Theorem' which have never been proved and which any fool could have guessed." G.H. Hardy, Fourier Series, 1943
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Denmark, Earth
    Posts
    16
    That was the most retarded statement ive ever seen, and that says something, considering i play WoW.

    Another remarkable one, is "sry gyus but i need ur pasvord 2 invit".
    Of course, believing retarded statements, is even worse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Could you be specific as to which statement you claim to be "retarded"?
    "It is comparatively easy to make clever guesses; indeed there are theorems, like 'Goldbach's Theorem' which have never been proved and which any fool could have guessed." G.H. Hardy, Fourier Series, 1943
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Okay to get this back on track - why should we believe that it is rational to use the past to predict the future behaviour of the sun (as everyone seems to have tried). i.e. is probabilistic reasoning defendable in the court of philosophy?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    Okay to get this back on track - why should we believe that it is rational to use the past to predict the future behaviour of the sun (as everyone seems to have tried). i.e. is probabilistic reasoning defendable in the court of philosophy?
    The past contains the record of previous behaviour. Had the sun NOT risen everyday (or should that be every rotation of the earth?) had it missed a few times we could calculate the probability of it doing the same again. There is no apparent mechanism for the sun not to rise. I feel the probability of an event occurring is inextricably linked to history. Suppose you were transported to a different universe and were asked to immediately produce the probability of some event occurring, since you have no experience in that universe it would be impossible. You would need the knowledge of others, based on their experience and hence history. I guess simply put, because 'tomorrow' is a portion of time, then time has to be sampled, that can only mean the past or history.

    Some probabilities do not require history, such as putting 10 red and ten blue cubes in a bag, picking one out etc. So long as all the cubes are in the bag when one is selected, time is not important.

    That's what I think..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    The problem of induction.

    Your heart has continued beating throughout the entirety of your life.
    And yet. One day. It will stop.

    The sun has risen over the Earth (from the Earth's vantage point) every day for over 4 billion years. And yet, one day it will not.

    Induction fails.
    Sorry guys.
    That's why science isn't so caught up in inductivism and positivism these days. Where you all been?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    The past contains the record of previous behaviour. Had the sun NOT risen everyday (or should that be every rotation of the earth?) had it missed a few times we could calculate the probability of it doing the same again. There is no apparent mechanism for the sun not to rise. I feel the probability of an event occurring is inextricably linked to history. Suppose you were transported to a different universe and were asked to immediately produce the probability of some event occurring, since you have no experience in that universe it would be impossible. You would need the knowledge of others, based on their experience and hence history. I guess simply put, because 'tomorrow' is a portion of time, then time has to be sampled, that can only mean the past or history.

    Some probabilities do not require history, such as putting 10 red and ten blue cubes in a bag, picking one out etc. So long as all the cubes are in the bag when one is selected, time is not important.

    That's what I think..
    True, but that does not show that the inference is logical, you need something to say that the past somehow models the future. Obviously it does not model it entirely (things break down, prices go up etc) so how does the past model the future? What are good inferences, what are bad inferences?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    If you all will allow me to butt in with a sense of humor....

    Wasn't this question asked yesterday?
    8)

    Ha ha. Okay... joke's over.

    cheers
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    If you all will allow me to butt in with a sense of humor....

    Wasn't this question asked yesterday?
    8)

    Ha ha. Okay... joke's over.

    cheers
    LMAO

    Now I know why you are a valued member of the forum... :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus
    The problem of induction.

    Your heart has continued beating throughout the entirety of your life.
    And yet. One day. It will stop.

    The sun has risen over the Earth (from the Earth's vantage point) every day for over 4 billion years. And yet, one day it will not.

    Induction fails.
    Sorry guys.
    That's why science isn't so caught up in inductivism and positivism these days. Where you all been?
    If I was your age I'd say my heart would beat tomorrow, at my age I have to modify that and say I hope!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus
    The problem of induction.

    Your heart has continued beating throughout the entirety of your life.
    And yet. One day. It will stop.

    The sun has risen over the Earth (from the Earth's vantage point) every day for over 4 billion years. And yet, one day it will not.

    Induction fails.
    Sorry guys.
    That's why science isn't so caught up in inductivism and positivism these days. Where you all been?
    Hence my paging hume post when this whole thing started - i thought it would have been picked up quickier
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Billco,

    If I was your age I'd say my heart would beat tomorrow, at my age I have to modify that and say I hope!
    Did you use induction or deduction to come to a conclusion about my age?

    Anyway.
    Young people die just as surely as old people do.

    Look at it from another angle.
    Once your heart didn't beat. Then, one day, it started.
    Who'da thunk?


    River Rat,

    Hence my paging hume post when this whole thing started - i thought it would have been picked up quickier
    Aye. I caught it. I certainly did.
    Perhaps a reference to Popper would have been more noticeable to the rest?
    But, then again, I'm pretty sure that at least Ophiolite is aware of the problem of induction as I"m pretty sure that it has been discussed in threads which he has taken part... unless my memory of past yesterdays is somehow awry...


    Which, of course, leads to another problem with induction.
    Memory is faulty. Very faulty.
    As is perception.

    What a world we live in where there is no longer true justification of knowledge...
    It takes a brave man to stand up and say YES in such a world nonetheless, yes?

    Choice is all important in this brave new world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Guest
    I feel you are spilling into philosophy here, whereas I say there is no conventional scientific model in effect today that will prevent the sun from rising tomorrow, of course it is not a certainty. There is a chance it may not, by my humble knowledge I conclude the odds are astronomical against it failing to rise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    It is philosophy. Philosophy of science.

    As to the odds of the sun rising tomorrow....
    What if it's raining?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Guest
    It'll still rise.

    'tomorrow' is defined by the sun rising, so if the sun don't rise there will be no tomorrow.

    If you want to experience the sun not rising tomorrow jump in a plane in at 1AM local time scotland and fly due West around the world at 646mph
    for the occupants of the plane the sun will not rise tomorrow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    It'll still rise.
    It will?
    Funny.
    I've never seen the sun rise on cloudy days.
    Hmm.

    Sure you're not extrapolating?

    'tomorrow' is defined by the sun rising, so if the sun don't rise there will be no tomorrow.
    It is?
    So, the sun rises at midnight?
    Ah.
    My clocks must be set wrong...

    If you want to experience the sun not rising tomorrow jump in a plane in at 1AM local time scotland and fly due West around the world at 646mph
    for the occupants of the plane the sun will not rise tomorrow.
    And would they then be justified to induce that the sun will continue to not rise?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Guest
    If the sun don't rise[for you] on a cloudy day, what is illuminating the clouds?.

    Tomorrow is the day after today. day is lit by the light of the sun.

    The question was whether it would rise tomorrow, not stop rising forever, so the guys in the plane would not experience sunrise tomorrow.

    I don't think it's your clocks that are screwed up... :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    If the sun don't rise[for you] on a cloudy day, what is illuminating the clouds?.
    I don't know. I can't see it.
    I can make an induction based on previous experience... but this sort of falls into circular reasoning, yes?

    But. You know. Despite my years and years of watching the sun rise (although, truthfully I have missed more sunrises than I have seen), I have this suspicion that.. the sun doesn't rise at all...
    I know. Call me crazy. But there's this new theory called heliocentrism...
    But, it can't be proven inductively.

    Tomorrow is the day after today. day is lit by the light of the sun.
    Yes. Like I said.
    The sun rises at midnight.
    Point taken. I'll be sure to set my clocks tomorrow at sunrise (as long as it's not raining, that is.)

    I wonder why my boss has never mentioned it that I get to work hours early? And leave early as well? Maybe they're using some different method of time keeping?

    The question was whether it would rise tomorrow, not stop rising forever, so the guys in the plane would not experience sunrise tomorrow.
    And would they also be able to induce that they could keep flying around the world in that plan indefinitely because they have done so for some period of time already?
    And the longer they stay up in the air, the more certain that their flight will continue unimpeded?

    What if they jump out of the plane?
    The odds that their freefall will end decrease as the length of their fall increases?

    I do understand what you're saying, yes?

    I don't think it's your clocks that are screwed up...
    I think you're right.
    I'm starting to think that I will live forever based on your reasoning.
    I think I should probably buy a cape and tights and go fight crime or something.
    I'm Amazing!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Guest
    Good, I'm glad you see sense at the end of it!

    So now you can go back to debating with your buddy Fausto.



    Quote/
    Did you use induction or deduction to come to a conclusion about my age?
    /unquote

    Neither it was the quality of you posts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    I accept your surrender.
    Induction fails.
    Thread locked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    So now you can go back to debating with your buddy Fausto.
    This is some sort of veiled ad hom, yes?
    Shame shame.
    You're a coward.
    But. The question is, can I induce from this fact that you will always be a coward?


    Anyway.
    My 'debate' with my 'buddy' Fausto was merely an attempt to elicit a response from him to determine if he was actually posting material which he was familiar with or if he instead was simply cutting and pasting.

    I did determine that the material posted wasn't utter nonsense as some would have it. Just that it was merely wrapped up in jargon and obfuscatory methods.

    I also deduced that that it was just a cut and paste (although there is still a chance that he does know the material and is rather testing us...)

    Should I instead merely have dumped ridicule upon his head and played authoritarian and elitist games such as some members of Mensa might enjoy?


    I should have dumped ridicule on Megabrain's head in that thread for failing to comprehend the veracity of the opening post even if it was a cut and paste.
    Yet. I did not.

    No wonder I'm not a member of Mensa...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus
    But, then again, I'm pretty sure that at least Ophiolite is aware of the problem of induction as I"m pretty sure that it has been discussed in threads which he has taken part... unless my memory of past yesterdays is somehow awry...
    It never occured to me that anyone would take my calculation of probabilities seriously. I thought the original question was nonsensical in the maths forum (it coud have worked in philosphy, perhaps) and was seeking to demonstrate that by my calculation.

    Similarily I thought the reference to Hume by River Rat was an indication that my point had been understood.

    Ah well. I had a friend who was raised in East Africa. He defended lion hunting with a high powered rifle on the following basis. "The lion has a fifty-fifty chance. Either you hit him, or you miss him. That's fifty-fifty."
    This sunrise discussion seems to be about the same level - and not a single mention of the situation beyond the Arctic or Antarctic circles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    27
    thats a little of topic but can u tell me the formula for % probabilities?
    For example something that has 50% chances to happend how many chances has to happen after 10 times?

    Sorry for my ignorance :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    M
    M is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    282
    Is there not a single mathematician contributing to this thread?

    So much agony and confusion over a trivial question. Why does the sun rise on Earth? Because Earth rotates about its own axis. So do many other planets, asteroids, and stars. Will our sun rise tomorrow? I feel that's extremely likely, considering the number of planets out there, who rotate about heir own axes. Will it rise on Earth, now that's an entirely different question... but that wasn't asked!

    Seriously, how do you evaluate the probability of the sun rising over Earth, just as it did for at least as long as humans keep record? For those of you who still believe in the 50/50 nonsense, I strongly suggest you read the book "Innumeracy" by John Allen Paulos; it will be an eye opener for all those shakey with number concepts and probability.

    For everyone else I suggest to look at it from a different (maybe more physical perspective). Most of us know that the chance to throw heads or tails is 50% each. This probability does not change regardless how many times you have thrown tails or heads before, i.e. the probability does not depend on history (if you disagree, please read Paulos' book or retake Statistics 101). Should it be any different with Earth's rotation? Does anything about Earth's rotation have anything to do with the history of its motion? I am not giving any answers here, just trying to stimulate a different strand of thought. What events, known to man, could possibly change Earth's rotation (or annihilate either Earth or Sun), such that Sun does not rise as usual tomorrow? And how likely will such event be? Some people are professionally concernced with such questions, it's not merely philosophical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Guest
    M,
    I'll refer you to my first reply which should calm you a little... :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Just so everyone knows.
    The sun did NOT rise this morning.
    And I was all ready to set my clock to midnight.

    Stupid clouds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    Is there not a single mathematician contributing to this thread?

    So much agony and confusion over a trivial question. Why does the sun rise on Earth? Because Earth rotates about its own axis. So do many other planets, asteroids, and stars. Will our sun rise tomorrow? I feel that's extremely likely, considering the number of planets out there, who rotate about heir own axes. Will it rise on Earth, now that's an entirely different question... but that wasn't asked!

    Seriously, how do you evaluate the probability of the sun rising over Earth, just as it did for at least as long as humans keep record? For those of you who still believe in the 50/50 nonsense, I strongly suggest you read the book "Innumeracy" by John Allen Paulos; it will be an eye opener for all those shakey with number concepts and probability.

    For everyone else I suggest to look at it from a different (maybe more physical perspective). Most of us know that the chance to throw heads or tails is 50% each. This probability does not change regardless how many times you have thrown tails or heads before, i.e. the probability does not depend on history (if you disagree, please read Paulos' book or retake Statistics 101). Should it be any different with Earth's rotation? Does anything about Earth's rotation have anything to do with the history of its motion? I am not giving any answers here, just trying to stimulate a different strand of thought. What events, known to man, could possibly change Earth's rotation (or annihilate either Earth or Sun), such that Sun does not rise as usual tomorrow? And how likely will such event be? Some people are professionally concernced with such questions, it's not merely philosophical.
    This missing the important point - why should we believe that the future is somehow modeled on the past. So the earth rotated in the past, why cant it just stop tomorrow? Why is inductive argument rational?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus
    Just so everyone knows.
    The sun did NOT rise this morning.
    And I was all ready to set my clock to midnight.

    Stupid clouds.
    If you are still uncetain whether the sun rose this morning, why not ask an adult?


    I will remind you it was yourself who first deviated from rational debate and decended into frivolity, If you speak as an idiot then expect to be treated as one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    M
    M is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    282
    Will the universe disappear tomorrow?

    Will the gravity reverse it's direction tomorrow?

    Will aliens attack us tomorrow?

    Can probability be applied to events which we have never observed and about which we know absolutely nothing? Probability is not some black magic that is handed to us by a mysterious oracle. In order to assess the probability of an event you have to know something about it.

    Could you tell me the probability of rolling a 6 with a dice, if you didn't even know what a dice is? Would you be able to assess the probability of rolling a 6 with my custom made dice, which has an unknown number of faces?

    In order to evaluate the probability of any event, you would first have to know all possible outcomes, and then have some way of telling the likeliness of each by either of two methods: Statistical sample data or analysis from scientific principles.

    If statistical data is not available, because no one has ever observed the imaginary event, you are stuck with the analysis. Analysis is meaningful only when based on known principles.

    I am not sure if this is obvious to everyone, but probability is hardly an absolute and universally objective measure. It is an estimate of likelihood based on what we know at the time of the assessment. Everything else would be meaningless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    If you are still uncetain whether the sun rose this morning, why not ask an adult?
    More ad hom?

    I'd like to request the chain of inductive (or deductive if you prefer) reasoning which leads to your belief in my youth.
    This isn't the first time you've made such a statement.

    Are you psychic, by any chance?


    I will remind you it was yourself who first deviated from rational debate and decended into frivolity, If you speak as an idiot then expect to be treated as one.
    Oh. Dear.
    Please forgive me for having the sheer and unmitigated gall to mention the inherent problem of induction to one so wise and all-knowing as yourself.
    I erred, oh great one.
    Please forgive your humble servant.
    You are absolutely correct.
    Induction is god.

    I will say it 20 times to myself every day upon awakening and 20 times every night before sleeping.


    By the way, do you still refuse to acknowledge the idiocy of your own statements concerning new days beginning at sunrise?
    That was pretty damn dumb, you realize?
    Nah. Wait.
    That's impossible.
    Not from you...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    M
    M is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    282
    This missing the important point - why should we believe that the future is somehow modeled on the past.
    I did not exactly miss that point, I dismissed it. And I didn't dismiss it because I don't agree with it. I am just saying that that idea doesn't help you answer the original question of probability:

    You can speculate about the unexpected, but if you descend along that path, it make no sense (and is not possible) to define a quantitative probability. You have no set of data to make any estimates, nor would you accept any analysis based on previously established relationships because they may be obsolete in face of the unexpected event. Hence, the problem (asking about the probability of the unexpected) is ill-posed.

    So the earth rotated in the past, why cant it just stop tomorrow? Why is inductive argument rational?
    The Earth might stop. That's not the point. The task was to assign a probability to that event. I have been trying to explain in my previous (and this post) why that doesn't make sense, ..... unless we are talking about events that will indeed by describable by prior experience, data, and the established laws of physics. If you were to ask, for example, what would be the probability for an asteroid to hit the Earth and make it rotate in such a way that the sun becomes geostationary... I am sure you can come up with an answer. But that's not what you guys were discussing. In fact the whole discussion has been avoiding the main question so far: What is the probability?

    Why is induction rational? Because logic and rationality, as we know it and use it, depends on induction. If the addition of two integers as in "1+1" is an integer "2" today, and an integer "3" tomorrow, our way to look at logic becomes pretty much useless. Mathematics may be able to describe chaos to some extend, but when the laws of math themselves became chaotic we'd be dealing with more trouble that not seeing the sun.
    Is that impossible? Nothing is impossible (what an unfalsifyable, utterly irrelevant statement). But can you tell me the probability of that happening?

    You can philosophize over a complete break-down of science, but the qualitative statement "it's possible" is in no way helping to determine a quantitative probability to that event. That was the question, and that's my point.

    What's the answer?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by M
    This missing the important point - why should we believe that the future is somehow modeled on the past.
    I did not exactly miss that point, I dismissed it. And I didn't dismiss it because I don't agree with it. I am just saying that that idea doesn't help you answer the original question of probability:

    You can speculate about the unexpected, but if you descend along that path, it make no sense (and is not possible) to define a quantitative probability. You have no set of data to make any estimates, nor would you accept any analysis based on previously established relationships because they may be obsolete in face of the unexpected event. Hence, the problem (asking about the probability of the unexpected) is ill-posed.

    So the earth rotated in the past, why cant it just stop tomorrow? Why is inductive argument rational?
    The Earth might stop. That's not the point. The task was to assign a probability to that event. I have been trying to explain in my previous (and this post) why that doesn't make sense, ..... unless we are talking about events that will indeed by describable by prior experience, data, and the established laws of physics. If you were to ask, for example, what would be the probability for an asteroid to hit the Earth and make it rotate in such a way that the sun becomes geostationary... I am sure you can come up with an answer. But that's not what you guys were discussing. In fact the whole discussion has been avoiding the main question so far: What is the probability?

    Why is induction rational? Because logic and rationality, as we know it and use it, depends on induction. If the addition of two integers as in "1+1" is an integer "2" today, and an integer "3" tomorrow, our way to look at logic becomes pretty much useless. Mathematics may be able to describe chaos to some extend, but when the laws of math themselves became chaotic we'd be dealing with more trouble that not seeing the sun.
    Is that impossible? Nothing is impossible (what an unfalsifyable, utterly irrelevant statement). But can you tell me the probability of that happening?

    You can philosophize over a complete break-down of science, but the qualitative statement "it's possible" is in no way helping to determine a quantitative probability to that event. That was the question, and that's my point.

    What's the answer?
    The original question question was not a probability one though - it was why can we say the sun will rise tomorrow? Probability does not help for the same reason induction does not help. It is not asking about the probability of the unexpected - it is asking if modelling from the past is rational and can it be defended as such. No mathematics, no probabilites required.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus
    If you are still uncetain whether the sun rose this morning, why not ask an adult?
    More ad hom?

    I'd like to request the chain of inductive (or deductive if you prefer) reasoning which leads to your belief in my youth.
    This isn't the first time you've made such a statement.

    Are you psychic, by any chance?


    I will remind you it was yourself who first deviated from rational debate and decended into frivolity, If you speak as an idiot then expect to be treated as one.
    Oh. Dear.
    Please forgive me for having the sheer and unmitigated gall to mention the inherent problem of induction to one so wise and all-knowing as yourself.
    I erred, oh great one.
    Please forgive your humble servant.
    You are absolutely correct.
    Induction is god.

    I will say it 20 times to myself every day upon awakening and 20 times every night before sleeping.


    By the way, do you still refuse to acknowledge the idiocy of your own statements concerning new days beginning at sunrise?
    That was pretty damn dumb, you realize?
    Nah. Wait.
    That's impossible.
    Not from you...
    Who the phuck said anything [originally] about youth? - I harmlessly suggested that I thought at your age your heart might beat further into the future than mine. Either you are over 70 or you are younger than me. The probability is that you are younger. Oh shit there I go again, mea ph'kin culpe!

    Welcome to my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    M
    M is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    282
    lince!: can someone give a justification or mathematically, the probability of this event.
    You may accept "it's possible" as a justification, but that leaves the bigger question unanswered. I was waiting for someone to acknowledge that a probability cannot be determined, here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    If the sun didn't rise tomorrow I'd have to challenge everything I thought I knew :? . I'd leave university and concentrate on the guitar. Then I'd probably die , unless it came back up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    I think I got it!!!

    P(sun won't rise) = 1 - P(sun will rise)

    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Guest
    It will rise tomorrow, watch, mind you I dare say there will some idiot philosopher induced into thinking otherwise, but it'll be there. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    I think I got it!!!

    P(sun won't rise) = 1 - P(sun will rise)

    That's probably the most logical thing I've seen on this forum. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Welcome to my ignore list.
    OH NOOOOOOOO!!!!

    Heh.
    It's always funny when people advertise their ignore list.
    I wonder if you'll be one of those who respond with quotes from the ignored post?
    "So and so's post can't be seen because he/she is on your ignore list."

    Heh.

    Whatever, dick.
    The point was simple.
    I can't help it if you're too conceited to admit your own moronic statements.

    Heh.
    Hell. The thing about clouds was actually your idea.

    By the way.
    On the off chance that you haven't added me to your ignore list yet.
    Nice debate.
    I like how you constantly refuse to acknowledge points.
    It's like really mensa-ish and stuff.

    Who the phuck said anything [originally] about youth?
    You ad hom'ed me with the 'ask an adult' thing. Remember?
    This implies youth.

    tough stuff, genius.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman lince!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    I think I got it!!!

    P(sun won't rise) = 1 - P(sun will rise)


    hmm.....
    think i am the fuse of this series of arguement, it will be a great honour of me to say this is a valuable approach by mathematics formula.

    thanks to your guys who have gone thus far....
    i personally don't wish to talk about this in philosophy or physics.
    maths also deserves of this question.

    but i don't wish to define tomorrow by sunrise.
    cloudy day is just funny because you still see the light.

    what i wish to know is
    whether the past will influence the future mathematically. hehe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by lince!
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    I think I got it!!!

    P(sun won't rise) = 1 - P(sun will rise)


    hmm.....
    think i am the fuse of this series of arguement, it will be a great honour of me to say this is a valuable approach by mathematics formula.

    thanks to your guys who have gone thus far....
    i personally don't wish to talk about this in philosophy or physics.
    maths also deserves of this question.

    but i don't wish to define tomorrow by sunrise.
    cloudy day is just funny because you still see the light.

    what i wish to know is
    whether the past will influence the future mathematically. hehe.
    When I was referring to tomorrow and sunrise it was in the generaly accepted sense. EG First thing tommow morning I shall have breakfast.
    usually means 'sun-up' and not 1 minute past midnight - the guy was being an ass[in my opinion] by taking it literally word for word.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,614
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    I think I got it!!!

    P(sun won't rise) = 1 - P(sun will rise)

    :D
    True enough, as far as it goes, but statistically rather unsophisticated.

    Let p = probability sun won't rise, q = probability sun will rise, p + q = 1

    Consider tomorrow and the day after. The combined probalities are now
    (p + q)(p + q) = p² + q² + 2pq.

    Evidently, there is a significant probability the sun will both rise and not rise. As we know from experience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    I think I got it!!!

    P(sun won't rise) = 1 - P(sun will rise)

    True enough, as far as it goes, but statistically rather unsophisticated.

    Let p = probability sun won't rise, q = probability sun will rise, p + q = 1

    Consider tomorrow and the day after. The combined probalities are now
    (p + q)(p + q) = p² + q² + 2pq.

    Evidently, there is a significant probability the sun will both rise and not rise. As we know from experience.
    What a pointless addition to this thread
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,614
    Know the word "joke"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    ha ha you're SO funny!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    EG First thing tommow morning I shall have breakfast.
    usually means 'sun-up' and not 1 minute past midnight
    You might note an added word in there.
    "morning".
    That is the first thing in the tomorrow's morning.
    Morning being a general term which might be applied to anytime after midnight as well, but is more properly applied to the period between dawn and noon.

    Here.
    A handy solution.
    A dictionary.
    Wow.

    morn‧ing  /ˈmɔrnɪŋ/
    Pronunciation[mawr-ning]
    –noun
    1. the first part or period of the day, extending from dawn, or from midnight, to noon.
    2. the beginning of day; dawn: Morning is almost here.
    3. the first or early period of anything; beginning: the morning of life.
    –adjective
    4. of or pertaining to morning: the morning hours.
    5. occurring, appearing, used, etc., in the morning: a morning coffee break.


    to‧mor‧row  /təˈmɔroʊ, -ˈmɒroʊ/
    Pronunciation[tuh-mawr-oh, -mor-oh]
    –noun
    1. the day following today: Tomorrow is supposed to be sunny.
    2. a future period or time: the stars of tomorrow.
    –adverb
    3. on the morrow; on the day following today: Come tomorrow at this same time.
    4. at some future time: We shall rest easy tomorrow if we work for peace today.


    Tricky....


    the guy was being an ass[in my opinion] by taking it literally word for word.
    Ooh.
    Heaven forbid that one should expect language to have precise meanings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    50
    "sramanujam, you appear to be hijacking the identity of one of India's greatest mathematicians!"
    I'm sorry, for its not my intention to hijack the identity of mathematician ramanujan, but its my name.
    Well, I got to know the difference between possibility and probability through this thread. Many thanks .

    BTW, thanks for the link.
    K. Srinivasa Ramanujam
    M.S (by Research) Scholar,
    http://ramanujamblog.blogspot.com
    India
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    10
    I love that topic, I can see some people write things before even thinking of what they say.
    Of corse, I aldo do mistakes of this cathegory, but this topic is full of them.
    I won't calculate it, but I could. (of corse, I'll get the first calcul wrong like everybody, but by doing it ceveral times, I would get the right answer).
    Tony Vulcan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyVulcan
    I love that topic, I can see some people write things before even thinking of what they say.
    Of corse, I aldo do mistakes of this cathegory, but this topic is full of them.
    I won't calculate it, but I could. (of corse, I'll get the first calcul wrong like everybody, but by doing it ceveral times, I would get the right answer).
    ????? ?????
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman lince!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    28
    dictionary..........
    OK.
    that is rather literal meaning of tomorrow.
    i was referring to the time which i can only use 'tomorrow' to represent it.
    sorry for the misleading, if there is any.
    sigh, i wished to make the question itself straightfoward..........
    can someone contribute some more constructive ideas?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4
    The Sun will always be there, unless the earth stop spinning and you are on the dark side of th earth. But if the sun does not rise means the sun has gone to non-existence, then that is not possible.

    Just like you cannot force a 1 to be a 0.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by oneheartstrong
    The Sun will always be there, unless the earth stop spinning and you are on the dark side of th earth. But if the sun does not rise means the sun has gone to non-existence, then that is not possible.

    Just like you cannot force a 1 to be a 0.
    Er, you can force a one to become a zero. and if you are at the north pole the sun will NOT rise tomorrow, or the next day.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4
    In that case, you don't even have to go to the north, you can just keep your speed of motion constant with the motion of the Earth and always stay on the dark side of the earth. The sun will never ever rise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Guest
    Yeah, we've been through that one as well if you read back far enough...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    M
    M is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    282
    'Tomorrow' was almost two months ago! Do we still not know if the sun went up or not? :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Guest
    Looking back it seems it was cloudy that day, so some guy looks like he got pretty bent out of shape, and probably lost a $5 dollar bet or something. - Me I overslept so I wouldn't know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1
    If the sun don't rise, there won't be a tomorrow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    ehm?? sun rise??

    The only way the sun will stop rising is if the earth would exactly stop spinning on the day barrier. Or actually just before it so nobody who stands on the day barrier can see the sun rise.

    so there would be no chanse the sun will stop rising. Exactly 0%

    why? well, as shown statisticly, there is only a new day if the sun rises. So actually it's a paradox

    If the sun doesn't rise there is no tomorrow, so the sun can't rise tomorrow. but if there is no tomorrow, how to define when the sun has to rise??

    so phi hung is right..
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by sramanujam View Post
    There are only two possibilities. The sun will rise, or it will not. Thus the probability of tomorrow's sunrise is 1/2.
    I actually went through the trouble to register for this forum to chime in and support this answer. If you want the true scientific answer, this is correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Laffycaffi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sramanujam View Post
    There are only two possibilities. The sun will rise, or it will not. Thus the probability of tomorrow's sunrise is 1/2.
    I actually went through the trouble to register for this forum to chime in and support this answer. If you want the true scientific answer, this is correct.
    No. You have endorsed a naive and wrong answer, not a "true scientific" answer. The "Thus" clause in sramanujam's answer does not follow from the existence of only two possibilities.

    Just because the sample space consists of only two possible outcomes does not in any way imply that both outcomes are equiprobable. Tomorrow you could die or not. Do you honestly believe your chance of dying tomorrow is therefore 50%?

    If you have a coin that has come up heads a million times in a row, it is more likely that you have a biased coin than that you are on an exceedingly improbable lucky run. If I were a gambler, I would enjoy betting against you with large sums of money for, with a probability greatly in excess of 50%, you would be a pauper at the end of the bet.

    For details, look up Bayes' theorem and Bayesian inference.
    Last edited by tk421; January 31st, 2018 at 10:27 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Laffycaffi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sramanujam View Post
    There are only two possibilities. The sun will rise, or it will not. Thus the probability of tomorrow's sunrise is 1/2.
    I actually went through the trouble to register for this forum to chime in and support this answer. If you want the true scientific answer, this is correct.
    No. You have endorsed a naive and wrong answer, not a "true scientific" answer. The "Thus" clause in sramanujam's answer does not follow from the existence of only two possibilities.

    Just because the sample space consists of only two possible outcomes does not in any way imply that both outcomes are equiprobable. Tomorrow you could die or not. Do you honestly believe your chance of dying tomorrow is therefore 50%?

    If you have a coin that has come up heads a million times in a row, it is more likely that you have a biased coin than that you are on an exceedingly improbable lucky run. If I were a gambler, I would enjoy betting against you with large sums of money for, with a probability greatly in excess of 50%, you would be a pauper at the end of the bet.

    For details, look up Bayes' theorem and Bayesian inference.
    Whoosh! Right over your head. This is a scientific riddle that common-man logic find difficult to resolve. You, like others, took the bait and allowed your science-ego dominate what is actually a very elementary concept. You have plenty of company.

    Edit: yes on my probability of dying tomorrow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Laffycaffi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Laffycaffi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sramanujam View Post
    There are only two possibilities. The sun will rise, or it will not. Thus the probability of tomorrow's sunrise is 1/2.
    I actually went through the trouble to register for this forum to chime in and support this answer. If you want the true scientific answer, this is correct.
    No. You have endorsed a naive and wrong answer, not a "true scientific" answer. The "Thus" clause in sramanujam's answer does not follow from the existence of only two possibilities.

    Just because the sample space consists of only two possible outcomes does not in any way imply that both outcomes are equiprobable. Tomorrow you could die or not. Do you honestly believe your chance of dying tomorrow is therefore 50%?

    If you have a coin that has come up heads a million times in a row, it is more likely that you have a biased coin than that you are on an exceedingly improbable lucky run. If I were a gambler, I would enjoy betting against you with large sums of money for, with a probability greatly in excess of 50%, you would be a pauper at the end of the bet.

    For details, look up Bayes' theorem and Bayesian inference.
    Whoosh! Right over your head. This is a scientific riddle that common-man logic find difficult to resolve. You, like others, took the bait and allowed your science-ego dominate what is actually a very elementary concept. You have plenty of company.

    Edit: yes on my probability of dying tomorrow.
    Whoosh right back at ya.

    I notice that you make no argument other than by your own authority. I also note that you do not address Bayes' theorem. You have fallen into the trap that a priori probabilities are the "true" probabilities. Failing to update your estimates as history accumulates is a rigid, simplistic approach to probability.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Laffycaffi View Post
    Whoosh! Right over your head. This is a scientific riddle that common-man logic find difficult to resolve. You, like others, took the bait and allowed your science-ego dominate what is actually a very elementary concept. You have plenty of company.
    Ignorance is rarely becoming, and revelling in it even less so.
    By your "logic" the chance of throwing a 6 on a die is 50/50 - you'll either get a six or you won't.
    Likewise for winning the lottery (regardless of whether you bought a ticket or not).
    Why bother going to school, since you either know a subject or you don't.
    These examples highlight the fallacy that you subscribe to.

    Just because there are two possibilities does NOT make them equiprobable.
    (Why bother going to a doctor when you're ill? After all you'll either get better or you won't...)
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Laffycaffi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Laffycaffi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sramanujam View Post
    There are only two possibilities. The sun will rise, or it will not. Thus the probability of tomorrow's sunrise is 1/2.
    I actually went through the trouble to register for this forum to chime in and support this answer. If you want the true scientific answer, this is correct.
    No. You have endorsed a naive and wrong answer, not a "true scientific" answer. The "Thus" clause in sramanujam's answer does not follow from the existence of only two possibilities.

    Just because the sample space consists of only two possible outcomes does not in any way imply that both outcomes are equiprobable. Tomorrow you could die or not. Do you honestly believe your chance of dying tomorrow is therefore 50%?

    If you have a coin that has come up heads a million times in a row, it is more likely that you have a biased coin than that you are on an exceedingly improbable lucky run. If I were a gambler, I would enjoy betting against you with large sums of money for, with a probability greatly in excess of 50%, you would be a pauper at the end of the bet.

    For details, look up Bayes' theorem and Bayesian inference.
    Whoosh! Right over your head. This is a scientific riddle that common-man logic find difficult to resolve. You, like others, took the bait and allowed your science-ego dominate what is actually a very elementary concept. You have plenty of company.Im so disappointed in you, Tk421: allowing your science-ego to dominate in the way that it did, preventing you from solving this elementary concept that common-man find difficult to resolve. You ought to be ashamed.

    Edit: yes on my probability of dying tomorrow.
    Im so disappointed in you, Tk421: allowing your science-ego to dominate in the way that it did, preventing you from solving this elementary concept that common-man find difficult to resolve. You ought to be ashamed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,733
    Obvious troll, don't feed it. (I mean Laffycaffi not Vex)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexspits View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Laffycaffi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Laffycaffi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sramanujam View Post
    There are only two possibilities. The sun will rise, or it will not. Thus the probability of tomorrow's sunrise is 1/2.
    I actually went through the trouble to register for this forum to chime in and support this answer. If you want the true scientific answer, this is correct.
    No. You have endorsed a naive and wrong answer, not a "true scientific" answer. The "Thus" clause in sramanujam's answer does not follow from the existence of only two possibilities.

    Just because the sample space consists of only two possible outcomes does not in any way imply that both outcomes are equiprobable. Tomorrow you could die or not. Do you honestly believe your chance of dying tomorrow is therefore 50%?

    If you have a coin that has come up heads a million times in a row, it is more likely that you have a biased coin than that you are on an exceedingly improbable lucky run. If I were a gambler, I would enjoy betting against you with large sums of money for, with a probability greatly in excess of 50%, you would be a pauper at the end of the bet.

    For details, look up Bayes' theorem and Bayesian inference.
    Whoosh! Right over your head. This is a scientific riddle that common-man logic find difficult to resolve. You, like others, took the bait and allowed your science-ego dominate what is actually a very elementary concept. You have plenty of company.I’m so disappointed in you, Tk421: allowing your science-ego to dominate in the way that it did, preventing you from solving this elementary concept that “common-man find difficult to resolve”. You ought to be ashamed.

    Edit: yes on my probability of dying tomorrow.
    I’m so disappointed in you, Tk421: allowing your science-ego to dominate in the way that it did, preventing you from solving this elementary concept that “common-man find difficult to resolve”. You ought to be ashamed.
    I'm usually ashamed, just as a matter of principle. It's all due to my being a common-man.

    I did notice a conspicuous absence of an argument from LaffyCaffy, but plenty of "science-ego".
    Last edited by tk421; February 1st, 2018 at 02:53 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,880
    Quote Originally Posted by Laffycaffi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sramanujam View Post
    There are only two possibilities. The sun will rise, or it will not. Thus the probability of tomorrow's sunrise is 1/2.
    I actually went through the trouble to register for this forum to chime in and support this answer. If you want the true scientific answer, this is correct.
    What a halfwitted comment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,733
    That's generous, I would have used another four letter word in place of "half"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Obvious troll, don't feed it. (I mean Laffycaffi not Vex)
    We do seem to have some nutters around. It is sometimes hard to distinguish between trolls and the thick-headed. Their behaviours are often very similar. Some sort of equivalence principle might apply here...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,880
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    I'm usually ashamed, just as a matter of principle. It's all due to my being a common-man.

    I did notice a conspicuous absence of an argument from LaffyCaffy, but plenty of "science-ego".
    Laffycovfefe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,642
    Quote Originally Posted by Laffycaffi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sramanujam View Post
    There are only two possibilities. The sun will rise, or it will not. Thus the probability of tomorrow's sunrise is 1/2.
    I actually went through the trouble to register for this forum to chime in and support this answer. If you want the true scientific answer, this is correct.
    If I toss a coin, there are three possibilities: heads, tails and edge. So, by your logic, the chance of getting a head is 1 in 3, correct?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    If I toss a coin, there are three possibilities: heads, tails and edge. So, by your logic, the chance of getting a head is 1 in 3, correct?
    A one in three chance of getting head...

    Ill get my coat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,306
    If I toss two identical coins simultaneously, the three possibilities are: two heads, one head and one tail, and two tails. These are equally probable...



    ... if the coins are bosons.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,153
    Can someone work out the probability of a dead thread rising tomorrow. This sucker is over 11 years old. Besides, the Sun only gives the appearance of rising in the morning.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    124
    Argument from authority:

    Yes. Lil Orphan Annie says it will.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Wow.. This has been one of the earlier comments i ever posted.

    We do seem to have some nutters around. It is sometimes hard to distinguish between trolls and the thick-headed. Their behaviours are often very similar. Some sort of equivalence principle might apply here...
    Their difference is that trolls use troll logic, and nutcases use no logic whatsoever, only "i think of it so it has to be correct"

    Troll logic would be;
    Digging a round trench with an inclined plane and waterfall, filling it with water, and setting up a water wheel in between it and expecting it to run perpetually.

    Nutter logic would be;
    I place a water wheel, it turns forever, i have perpetual energy.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1
    according to me it will rise 50percent
    probability = req/possible
    req is one and possiblity is 2
    so 1/2
    50percent
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,733
    You assigning equal odds to the two options, this is not the correct approach here. We understand how the Earth orbits the Sun, that changes the probabilities... Unless you ignore all we know a 50/50 choice is stupid, as earlier posters have pointed out...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •