Right, so if you can only define probability in terms of multiple events, is it sensical to talk about the probability of one event as anything other than a useful lie?

Also, how do you "repeat the same event"? Heraclitus is skeptical. At best you can repeat events that are very much like it.

But it's a nice definition. It still gives us the conclusion that

X

The utterance of X expresses true proposition

Can be different probabilities at a given moment. tres bizarre

farvacola

United States18836 Posts

January 06 2013 20:21 GMT

#222

I stepped into the same river twice once, I swear.

Boblion

France8043 Posts

January 06 2013 20:27 GMT

#223

Someone trying to challenge Heraclitus. That's cute lol.

sam!zdat

United States5559 Posts

January 06 2013 20:30 GMT

#224

On January 07 2013 05:21 farvacola wrote:
I stepped into the same river twice once, I swear.

I smell an equivocation

farvacola

United States18836 Posts

January 06 2013 20:37 GMT

#225

On January 07 2013 05:27 Boblion wrote:
Someone trying to challenge Heraclitus. That's cute lol.

One can never challenge the same Heraclitus twice

Boblion

France8043 Posts

January 06 2013 20:42 GMT

#226

I don't really know what you want to prove. By "Heraclitus" i mean his ideas. But if you want to challenge the existence of time go ahead lol.

farvacola

United States18836 Posts

January 06 2013 20:51 GMT

#227

Consider for a moment that the trace of human history exists like that of a flowing and ebbing river; a stream of information and context whose appearance and consistency find themselves inexorably tied to instantiation of contact. The Heraclitus of today and the Heraclitus of yesterday might seem quite the same in the minds eye, but they are most surely different, for time has passed!

Boblion

France8043 Posts

January 06 2013 20:56 GMT

#228

On January 07 2013 05:51 farvacola wrote:
Consider for a moment that the trace of human history exists like that of a flowing and ebbing river; a stream of information and context whose appearance and consistency find themselves inexorably tied to instantiation of contact. The Heraclitus of today and the Heraclitus of yesterday might seem quite the same in the minds eye, but they are most surely different, for time has passed!

You are trying so hard to be funny and yet you fail to realize that yea we are different every day, every hour, every second until our death. That process is called ageing lol.

Quoted for posterity tho. I think i will have to update my previous poll. Here comes a new challenger for Kukaracha lol.

sam!zdat

United States5559 Posts

January 06 2013 21:00 GMT

#229

Oh! Oh!

are you identical to yourself across time? I have a puzzle about that too!

farvacola

United States18836 Posts

January 06 2013 21:03 GMT

#230

That what I wrote appears as a joke to you might be a casualty of written forum communication, for I am not challenging the ideas of Heraclitus, merely reiterating them for my own enjoyment. Critique of absurdism aside, I do not think we disagree

Edit: and the quote! Oh dear, you do mistake me.

Boblion

France8043 Posts

January 06 2013 21:10 GMT

#231

Told you absurdism is dumb duh and that's why your joke wasn't funny

oneofthem

Cayman Islands24199 Posts

January 16 2013 20:35 GMT

#232

she should drink a lot of tea and go to sleep again. then the next time she'll know if she drank a lot of something. yea.

sam!zdat

United States5559 Posts

January 16 2013 20:40 GMT

#233

you think you're SOOOOO clever don't you, oot

oneofthem

Cayman Islands24199 Posts

January 16 2013 20:54 GMT

#234

well, this is kind of like asking the agent to evaluate from 2 perspectives, while driving in a bifurcated tunnel

one perspective looks straight ahead, which gives always 2 possibilities in that the coin is either up or down
the other perspective looks horizontally, seeing multiple possible observer agents that he could be. so 3 instances.

reminds me of zeno's paradox if anything(are we there yet vs where are we). world is not broken, just 2 kinds of probability accounting (evaluating the coin itself, vs evaluating observer instances)

sam!zdat

United States5559 Posts

January 16 2013 21:01 GMT

#235

yeah, definitely two kinds of probability accounting. The point is just that the bare fact of there being two kinds of probability is troubling for a certain naive understanding of what we are talking about when we are talking about probability. I think the idea of incommensurable flavors of probability is useful for upsetting some overly reifying tendencies in statistical thinking.