Philosophy Now Forum

My resolution works better by recognizing how the illusion that creates the apparent paradox. I don't care how you are normally used to using probabilities, the way I present this using zeros clarifies it. The reason it doesn't get used is for the same reason the number zero took so long to make its use in our present use today.

I used the 0 = 0 + 0 examples to show how these can cause difficulties by those who can't see the value of what is absent. So whether it is non-traditional for you to use non-zeros in probabilities, you DO add these and treat each incident as a member as an average to get the proper non-contradictory conclusion by my perspective.

Scott Mayers wrote:Well, I looked up and found a good link to a New York magazine article on this HERE
I learned that I was correct on the perception thing. Read this article to see how you would interpret it based on the perception, that all that matters is the result and so you choose to switch 2/3 of the time. But this is contradictory if you think that this is actually increasing your odds. They are still even but this is perceived by recognizing the actual acts that lead you to the results independently.

Did you see the article doesn’t conclude ? and that the goal is to show the bad way of reasoning, and the good way ?

That is my 1/2 understanding respects what I showed in the diagram above. For another illustration, (even recognizing the different probabilities using the math):

2015-09-05_070314.png

Add these up.

Here the diagram is clearly false, where did you find it ?
It doesn’t represent the problem, because here the monty picks, BEFORE you pick.
You should pick, then the monty should picks a empty door, then you should switch or stay.

dionisos wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:Well, I looked up and found a good link to a New York magazine article on this HERE
I learned that I was correct on the perception thing. Read this article to see how you would interpret it based on the perception, that all that matters is the result and so you choose to switch 2/3 of the time. But this is contradictory if you think that this is actually increasing your odds. They are still even but this is perceived by recognizing the actual acts that lead you to the results independently.

Did you see the article doesn’t conclude ? and that the goal is to show the bad way of reasoning, and the good way ?

That is my 1/2 understanding respects what I showed in the diagram above. For another illustration, (even recognizing the different probabilities using the math):

2015-09-05_070314.png

Add these up.

Here the diagram is clearly false, where did you find it ?
It doesn’t represent the problem, because here the monty picks, BEFORE you pick.
You should pick, then the monty should picks a empty door, then you should switch or stay.

My point is that by the way you and others place faith in the oddity of the problem is a contradiction until you recognize that the act of switching happens in two equally valued options but you only ignorantly think that since their values are the same (a nothing) you don't distinguish between them as unique events. In this way, probabilities like such tend to create a false impression by others to default to behaving in ways based on faith. When people adapt this thinking it actually encourages real abuses as it gets utilized to con others in new unique ways.

Scott Mayers wrote:My resolution works better by recognizing how the illusion that creates the apparent paradox. I don't care how you are normally used to using probabilities, the way I present this using zeros clarifies it. The reason it doesn't get used is for the same reason the number zero took so long to make its use in our present use today.

I used the 0 = 0 + 0 examples to show how these can cause difficulties by those who can't see the value of what is absent. So whether it is non-traditional for you to use non-zeros in probabilities, you DO add these and treat each incident as a member as an average to get the proper non-contradictory conclusion by my perspective.

My god, this is not about how i am used to use probability, it is about what probabilities is…

Saying the probability of a event is 0, mean the event will not happen.
I have absolutely no problem with saying P(X) = 0, it was just absolutely not the case in the problem.
And P(X) is not P(win|X).

I used the 0 = 0 + 0 examples to show how these can cause difficulties by those who can't see the value of what is absent.

What the fuck, you can’t be serious, you confuse yourself with some new age magical thinking in a math problem.
yes "0=0+0", but it have nothing to do with this problem, and you will not find some great truth by thinking about this stupid equation.

Scott Mayers wrote:

dionisos wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:Well, I looked up and found a good link to a New York magazine article on this HERE
I learned that I was correct on the perception thing. Read this article to see how you would interpret it based on the perception, that all that matters is the result and so you choose to switch 2/3 of the time. But this is contradictory if you think that this is actually increasing your odds. They are still even but this is perceived by recognizing the actual acts that lead you to the results independently.

Did you see the article doesn’t conclude ? and that the goal is to show the bad way of reasoning, and the good way ?

That is my 1/2 understanding respects what I showed in the diagram above. For another illustration, (even recognizing the different probabilities using the math):

2015-09-05_070314.png

Add these up.

Here the diagram is clearly false, where did you find it ?
It doesn’t represent the problem, because here the monty picks, BEFORE you pick.
You should pick, then the monty should picks a empty door, then you should switch or stay.

My point is that by the way you and others place faith in the oddity of the problem is a contradiction until you recognize that the act of switching happens in two equally valued options but you only ignorantly think that since their values are the same (a nothing) you don't distinguish between them as unique events. In this way, probabilities like such tend to create a false impression by others to default to behaving in ways based on faith. When people adapt this thinking it actually encourages real abuses as it gets utilized to con others in new unique ways.

Ok, now i totally give up, you think to have understand the problem and understood where the others was wrong, when you totally misunderstand it, and don’t understand 50% of what i say.
Everytime i correct you on a point, you make a new reasoning error to stay on your position, you change the subject, or you begin to speak nonsense.

Now you begin to send me external diagram or link, that are false, or that you clearly misunderstand.

I just give up.

If you give a formal definition of the game, and a formal solution to it, i will read it.
But i will not bother read anything less precise than it now.

Scott Mayers wrote:

dionisos wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:Well, I looked up and found a good link to a New York magazine article on this HERE
I learned that I was correct on the perception thing. Read this article to see how you would interpret it based on the perception, that all that matters is the result and so you choose to switch 2/3 of the time. But this is contradictory if you think that this is actually increasing your odds. They are still even but this is perceived by recognizing the actual acts that lead you to the results independently.

Did you see the article doesn’t conclude ? and that the goal is to show the bad way of reasoning, and the good way ?

That is my 1/2 understanding respects what I showed in the diagram above. For another illustration, (even recognizing the different probabilities using the math):

2015-09-05_070314.png

Add these up.

Here the diagram is clearly false, where did you find it ?
It doesn’t represent the problem, because here the monty picks, BEFORE you pick.
You should pick, then the monty should picks a empty door, then you should switch or stay.

My point is that by the way you and others place faith in the oddity of the problem is a contradiction until you recognize that the act of switching happens in two equally valued options but you only ignorantly think that since their values are the same (a nothing) you don't distinguish between them as unique events. In this way, probabilities like such tend to create a false impression by others to default to behaving in ways based on faith. When people adapt this thinking it actually encourages real abuses as it gets utilized to con others in new unique ways.

Yes, I see the flip. It was a modified version of the game used to interpret how it makes sense to others of your view in the end. The article is at the "HERE" above. I don't believe they answered it the best way I do as they still see the 'value' of the end result that leads them to choose to always 'switch' as what matters. The fix to take away the contradiction is to split that option and perceive it as the act of host to reveal distinctly when the guest has picked the car instead. This reduces the result to 1/2.

dionisos wrote:If you give a formal definition of the game, and a formal solution to it, i will read it.
But i will not bother read anything less precise than it now.

I'm surprised at how limited some people's capacity to intuit the perceptual differences. But cool, you're welcome to leave it be.

dionisos wrote:My god, this is not about how i am used to use probability, it is about what probabilities is…

dionisos wrote: What the fuck, you can’t be serious, you confuse yourself with some new age magical thinking in a math problem.
yes "0=0+0", but it have nothing to do with this problem, and you will not find some great truth by thinking about this stupid equation.

dionisos wrote:Everytime i correct you on a point, you make a new reasoning error to stay on your position, you change the subject, or you begin to speak nonsense.

Have a glass of red and a lie down, mate, because the same thing was happening to me and beginning to do me serious harm. VT predicted that I might blow my stack and she was right because this sort of shit seriously distresses me. It doesn't distress me because I think Scott is an idiot because if I thought that that were the case I could simply walk away. It distresses me because I think Scott is not an idiot but rather too stubborn to see the simplest of errors. He even linked us to an article which refutes his own argument without realising he had done so.

You are quite right when you say that no mathematician in the world refutes the correct Monty Hall solution and this problem is also used around the world in many undergraduate logic and psychology curricula to illustrate cognitive dissonance.

Scott. The only confusion here is in your own mind. Probability is not a matter of opinion.

Obvious Leo wrote:

dionisos wrote:My god, this is not about how i am used to use probability, it is about what probabilities is…

dionisos wrote: What the fuck, you can’t be serious, you confuse yourself with some new age magical thinking in a math problem.
yes "0=0+0", but it have nothing to do with this problem, and you will not find some great truth by thinking about this stupid equation.

dionisos wrote:Everytime i correct you on a point, you make a new reasoning error to stay on your position, you change the subject, or you begin to speak nonsense.

Have a glass of red and a lie down, mate, because the same thing was happening to me and beginning to do me serious harm. VT predicted that I might blow my stack and she was right because this sort of shit seriously distresses me. It doesn't distress me because I think Scott is an idiot because if I thought that that were the case I could simply walk away. It distresses me because I think Scott is not an idiot but rather too stubborn to see the simplest of errors. He even linked us to an article which refutes his own argument without realising he had done so.

You are quite right when you say that no mathematician in the world refutes the correct Monty Hall solution and this problem is also used around the world in many undergraduate logic and psychology curricula to illustrate cognitive dissonance.

Scott. The only confusion here is in your own mind. Probability is not a matter of opinion.

Even worse, according to Mickthinks the whole thing is entirely subjective and both viewpoints are equally valid (even though one has to be wrong). Are relativists the most irritating people on the planet?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Even worse, according to Mickthinks the whole thing is entirely subjective and both viewpoints are equally valid (even though one has to be wrong).

I don't think this is the point which mick was making. I think this is the point which mick was making:

"mathematics can be used to prove ANYTHING"....Albert Einstein.

Einstein was the greatest relativist of them all and he was dead right because mathematics cannot be used to prove a point about the nature of reality. Mathematics is intrinsically self-referential and tautologous and thus can only be used to prove a particular narrative of reality.

VT. Although I get it that maths is not your long suit I'm sure you will agree that if you switch your guess in the Monty Hall game then your chance of winning the car cannot be either 1/2 or 2/3 depending on your personal preference in this matter.

Obvious Leo wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Even worse, according to Mickthinks the whole thing is entirely subjective and both viewpoints are equally valid (even though one has to be wrong).

I don't think this is the point which mick was making. I think this is the point which mick was making:

"mathematics can be used to prove ANYTHING"....Albert Einstein.

Einstein was the greatest relativist of them all and he was dead right because mathematics cannot be used to prove a point about the nature of reality. Mathematics is intrinsically self-referential and tautologous and thus can only be used to prove a particular narrative of reality.

VT. Although I get it that maths is not your long suit I'm sure you will agree that if you switch your guess in the Monty Hall game then your chance of winning the car cannot be either 1/2 or 2/3 depending on your personal preference in this matter.

I'm good at maths as a matter of fact, just not trained in high maths. And I disagree about mickthinks. He's a philosophical relativist to the core (which Einstein was not). His position was from a relativist viewpoint. I've already said a few times on here that I agree with you. It's not about personal preference, since the Monty Hall problem has been proven many times.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: the Monty Hall problem has been proven many times.

This is what's doing my head in with Scott. The outcome is beyond question because it has been proven literally millons of times by undergraduates all over the world as a part of routine course-work requirements.

I reckon I can prove that it is mechanically impossible for a two-stroke internal combustion engine to work and yet I have several items of equipment in my shed which rely on them and I know how to maintain this equipment correctly. I used to know a bloke who could prove that it was aerodynamically impossible for a helicopter to fly.

Some mothers do 'ave 'em.

Obvious Leo wrote:Have a glass of red.

I did it, if obviousness itself give me this advice, then it should be wise

dionisos wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Have a glass of red.

I did it, if obviousness itself give me this advice, then it should be wise

You can trust me on this, I know whereof I speak.

Scott reminds me of the bloke who kept trying to prove to me that helicopters can't fly. I refused to look at his proofs and simply declared them wrong and this drove him crazy.