M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Actually, your own story seems to involve a certain amount of luck… I guess you believe in free will, by the way, from the way you’re arguing?
- Status
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Then the resources available are not a relevant issue in terms of removing yourself from being at the tender mercy of chance. As I’ve said, you are still at the mercy of chance if you can’t effect, or more accurately control the outcome.
I think there is a fault in your definition, that of defining chance as something where the cause is not understood - really, chance is anything that is not directly controlled, I’d say. What word is there for this, if not chance?
H
Hokomai
Guest
Nice of you to think so. There’s my dog, for a start -Why not?From a selfish point of view I wouldn’t be able to have discussions with you if you weren’t! I’m sure there are others who would miss you more than a little…
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Summary Response @Mystic Banana: You’re right!
Detailed Response:
“**1a. **The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause.”
"**1b. **A force assumed to cause events that cannot be foreseen or controlled; luck: "
For occasions where definition [1b] is applicable I think that with enough knowledge, information, and other resources one may find that the outcome of some series of events was influenced by the culmination of a number of unknowns or unaccounted factors. At least that’s my hypothesis. But I won’t be going any further down the [1a] pathway since with the clarification toneyrey provided I think I might start taking the discussion off topic.
Def Link
Detailed Response:
I think it is one of many valid definitions. It is because there are multiple valid definitions that I shared the one that I thought was most relevant.
“**1a. **The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause.”
Yeah, I seem to have been going down a different pathway. There’s another definition for chance that is both applicable to what you are describing and is compatible with toneyrey’s clarification.
"**1b. **A force assumed to cause events that cannot be foreseen or controlled; luck: "
For occasions where definition [1b] is applicable I think that with enough knowledge, information, and other resources one may find that the outcome of some series of events was influenced by the culmination of a number of unknowns or unaccounted factors. At least that’s my hypothesis. But I won’t be going any further down the [1a] pathway since with the clarification toneyrey provided I think I might start taking the discussion off topic.
Def Link
T
tonyrey
Guest
But not for a finish!Why not?
Nice of you to think so. There’s my dog, for a start -
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
I should point out that “unintended coincidences” are foreseen by God and permitted because they are inevitable in an immense and extremely complex universe with countless objects, individuals and events occurring at every moment of the day and night. It is a wonder that there aren’t far more catastrophes in a system controlled by natural laws which are unaware of what is happening…
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Well, not entirely inevitable, and presumably preventable. For God at least - otherwise he wouldn’t be very omnipotent, would he?
J
John21652
Guest
Can I flip a coin before I answer this question.
Is Chance an objective thing that exists despite the human mind and that can be quantified, or is it just a subjective analysis of what we think and percieve when we can’t quite grasp causal connections?
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
You can flip as many as you like but the outcome will be the same.
I think Poisson has answered that question…
J
John21652
Guest
I only need to flip once and so have a 50/50 chance of providing either of two answers I had in mind.You can flip as many as you like but the outcome will be the same.
Well, you learn something new every day. All based on Research on the Probability of Judgments in Criminal and Civil Matters. You gotta be kidding me!?! Then first used practically * to investigate the number of soldiers of the Prussian army killed accidentally by horse kick*. Oh my, just what Hume missed out on, eh?I think Poisson has answered that question…
The trouble I see in my brief reading on this is the introduction of unknowns into the equations. Rumsfeldt was right, there are things we know and things we think we know and there are unknowns we think we know. Or something like that.
So, where does that leave Poisson compared to Bayesian inference probabilities which require evidentiary knowledge? More suited to an objective theory of chance?
I’ll keep my coin. And go to St.Petersburg to play a game of coin toss.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Judging from your statements your decisions seem to be caused by something other than yourself!I only need to flip once and so have a 50/50 chance of providing either of two answers I had in mind.
Well, you learn something new every day. All based on Research on the Probability of Judgments in Criminal and Civil Matters. You gotta be kidding me!?! Then first used practically * to investigate the number of soldiers of the Prussian army killed accidentally by horse kick*. Oh my, just what Hume missed out on, eh?
The trouble I see in my brief reading on this is the introduction of unknowns into the equations. Rumsfeldt was right, there are things we know and things we think we know and there are unknowns we think we know. Or something like that.
So, where does that leave Poisson compared to Bayesian inference probabilities which require evidentiary knowledge? More suited to an objective theory of chance?
I’ll keep my coin. And go to St.Petersburg to play a game of coin toss.
J
John21652
Guest
The final cause was me making a dicision, surely?Judging from your statements your decisions seem to be caused by something other than yourself!
T
tonyrey
Guest
- Status