Solo's Probabality Theory

[Solo]

Diasclaimer:Everything you read beyond this disclaimer may be completely unoriginal,nonsensical, and a waste of your time. If you want to read one of the many theories I've written down then please continue. I'll try to make the journey simple and pleasant.

Background:
My ISTP friend and I were discussing something(can't remeber what) I said the chance this something happening was little to none. He said it was just none. I said it can't be none because it has to happen.

Theory:
The theory "states" that everything that can happen already has at least once or it will some time in the future. The reason is because if there is a % chance something will happen then it must happen.

Explanation(examples and notes):
This theory is not universal. It can’t be applied to everything. It only applies to situations/events/accidents/(SEA’s) etc. that could/would/have happen(ed) without human interference*. I call these “natural possibilities”

*subject to change with further analysis

Ex1: Imagine a bag with a red marble and a blue marble
Note: Don’t take into account that this situation wouldn’t exist without humans.

Ex1(cont): There is a chance that you will pick up the red marble is obvious) There is a chance you will draw the red marble for a second time. There is a chance you will draw the red marble for a third time. Sure that chance goes down every time but it is still there. There is a chance that you will draw the red marble 1000 times in a row. It will happen at least once because it has to happen. The very existence of the chance means it will happen.


I have another example which works but not under the guidelines of this theory. It should better illustrate my point of the “natural probabilities” that SEA’s can have..

Ex2: You wake up in the morning and you go downstairs to get some coffee. On your way back up the stairs you drop the coffee. This does not apply to my theory. I know there is a chance that it will happen but that doesn’t matter for two reasons.

Reason 1) We didn’t know you were going to drop the coffee. That hasn’t been proven. With the marble example we knew that you had to draw a red or blue marble.

Note a: The probability can’t just exist. We have to be able to prove it will happen(I know I said it will happen no matter what because the chance is there) One reason why we can’t prove it will happen is because of the human factor(explained next)

Note b: I should have said this earlier. When I say prove I don’t mean we have to conduct an experiment. If someone saw it happen that also proves the chance true.

Note c: One reason I’m so picky about proving the probability exists is because as humans we can think of an infinite amount of “what if” situations. We don’t know if these situations can happen. We don’t know if those aliens are going to come down and abduct us. Because we don’t know and can’t prove a “what if” situation we can’t now the chance of the SEA actually taking place or that the SEA actually exists.

Reason 2) Another reason why this doesn’t work is because of the human factor. Just because person A drops the coffee doesn’t mean person B will. The chance of the coffee being dropped isn’t constant. Person A may be a very clumsy person. Person B may have never dropped anything in their lives. I don’t know. No one knows. If you can’t measure a person’s clumsiness then you can’t measure the chance of the coffee being dropped. The clumsiness directly affects the chance that a person would drop the coffee. The probability/chance can’t be accurate. The probability may not exist. Even if we could measure clumsiness and how it changes the chance the coffee will be dropped it doesn’t matter. The chance still isn’t constant because each person is different. I’m not fully sure why I feel the chance should be constant. It just should.

I have more examples but I’m not going to write them at the moment. I don’t know if anyone will respond. I don’t even know what I want you to say if you do. So… uh…. Yea…

[Edmond Zedo]

Well I've got a theory for you. You're probably thinking too much.

The world isn't made of math, so everything ain't gonna happen. z0rz!

[MonChat]

This theory is not universal. It can’t be applied to everything. It only applies to situations/events/accidents/(SEA’s) etc. that could/would/have happen(ed) without human interference*. I call these “natural possibilities”
--

ok there are a few assumptions here. First of all when you say 'human interference' are we not assuming a causal link between SEA and some 'human activity' that effects it? Because if this is the case then I must ask the question: "how do identify a SEA that isn't effected by human activity?"

[Bluehaze]

[SNIP]

Theory:
The theory "states" that everything that can happen already has at least once or it will some time in the future. The reason is because if there is a % chance something will happen then it must happen.

Explanation(examples and notes):
This theory is not universal. It can’t be applied to everything. It only applies to situations/events/accidents/(SEA’s) etc. that could/would/have happen(ed) without human interference*. I call these “natural possibilities”

*subject to change with further analysis

Ex1: Imagine a bag with a red marble and a blue marble
Note: Don’t take into account that this situation wouldn’t exist without humans.

Ex1(cont): There is a chance that you will pick up the red marble is obvious) There is a chance you will draw the red marble for a second time. There is a chance you will draw the red marble for a third time. Sure that chance goes down every time but it is still there. There is a chance that you will draw the red marble 1000 times in a row. It will happen at least once because it has to happen. The very existence of the chance means it will happen.

This is false on many accounts, but the main is as follows:

If the universe were to disappear (explode, godly force playing with dice, etc) then all of the "chances" of something that would have had to happen up to that point would not happen. Therefore, chance does not mean that it will happen. In addition, no one can say for sure that when the universe ends 'that is that.' Perhaps another big bang will occur to give those chances another go-around for completion, perhaps a supreme being will snap his fingers and say, "poof--all chances that never had a chance, happen NOW!" We cannot know.

I should, therefore, also say that the "theory" cannot be disproved as well. However, this is but one of a near endless category of subjects, from epistemology to the subject of justice.


I have another example which works but not under the guidelines of this theory. It should better illustrate my point of the “natural probabilities” that SEA’s can have..

Ex2: You wake up in the morning and you go downstairs to get some coffee. On your way back up the stairs you drop the coffee. This does not apply to my theory. I know there is a chance that it will happen but that doesn’t matter for two reasons.

Reason 1) We didn’t know you were going to drop the coffee. That hasn’t been proven. With the marble example we knew that you had to draw a red or blue marble.

This is incorrect. You seem to forget that with the very choice of carrying the coffee pot entails the choice of not dropping it. Someone very well could decide to drop it by choice. This choice is also a chance that it will or will not happen and should therefore also be added to the random probability as well. I will elaborate in the next section.


Reason 2) Another reason why this doesn’t work is because of the human factor. Just because person A drops the coffee doesn’t mean person B will. The chance of the coffee being dropped isn’t constant. Person A may be a very clumsy person. Person B may have never dropped anything in their lives. I don’t know. No one knows. If you can’t measure a person’s clumsiness then you can’t measure the chance of the coffee being dropped. The clumsiness directly affects the chance that a person would drop the coffee. The probability/chance can’t be accurate. The probability may not exist. Even if we could measure clumsiness and how it changes the chance the coffee will be dropped it doesn’t matter. The chance still isn’t constant because each person is different. I’m not fully sure why I feel the chance should be constant. It just should.

I have more examples but I’m not going to write them at the moment. I don’t know if anyone will respond. I don’t even know what I want you to say if you do. So… uh…. Yea…Although there is a chance of a 'random' clumsiness factor, one must also acknowledge that if one had to choose a red or blue marble, that is an ideal situation. Those do not exist. If someone presents someone with the chance to pick a marble, human choice could dictate the chance to not pick.

Though it seems you are breaking it down to the very moment where one has decided to pick a marble with no other outside influence (spontaneous combustion of the marbles, death of the chooser), resulting in the random chance, then you must also yield that by carrying a coffee no other outside forces must also exist to cause clumsiness. The person carrying the coffee has already, and is already, carrying the coffee and that is that.

A major point being, that both have the human will of choice that can make both true and untrue at any moment. This destroys the 'theory of chance' that has been made by discrediting "natural possibilities."

In addition, since choice is involved, a person could throw the coffee pot, lightly set in on the floor, perform the robot with the pot in hand, or many countless options. This presents a 'complex situation' that makes it so that it is never a choice, or chance, of just red or blue.

I will not get into this too far, just touch on it. But, one could approach your theory assuming that a situation had somehow arisen to only have two choices--red or blue, drop or not drop. However, these type of situations would logically entail that they have an even less chance of occurring to begin with than any choice given above and should therefore not be wasted on when calculating an outcome.

[n0mad]

There are so man faulties in this (it's not a theory or a hypothesis) on both physical, mathematical, and philosophical account that it should simply be called a bad thread. I won't even try to explain what's wrong with it. 8O

[YardGnome]

Start Picking the marbles and let me know when you drew the red marble 1000 times in a row...

[YardGnome]

Btw that's a One in 2^1000 chance....

[jimkopelli]

How about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

It's not just a chance, it's a certainty, if given an infinite amount of time. Why bother? Hamlet has already been written. If truly given an infinite amount of time and monkeys, you'd also produce every other book known to man.

[Ascending]

I actualy was thinking of this some years ago. My question was "If something has forever to happen, will it be certain to happen?" I had thought I had answered it with "If something has forever to not happen, will it certainly not happen?"

Would some one care to expound the (likely obvious) flaws?