Question about probabilities

If there is only a small sample size but you get a certain eventuality twice within that sample does that make it any more likely that that eventuality will happen in future? I dont mean in terms of shaping the future :slight_smile: but rather than its a good indicator that it is probable in future.

Ie if you are trying to figure out how often a favourable result will happen. If you did something ten times and the result you wanted happened twice does that make it any more likely that the favourable result would happen in future than if it happened 0 times? Or could both those times have been flukes? Well I see that its more likely than 0 :smiley: but Im not sure how much?

Is it just a case that the only way to tell a good average is having a bigger sample? But do the 2 hits indicate a good chance it would happen in future or it doesnt tell you much about future eventualities given the small sample?

If the given result is a real scenario can I test that probability by saying that so far there is a 2/10 favourable result? So I can do the same thing again 10 times and expect or hope for at least 2/10 result? Not that I definintely will but the previous succeses indicate it might make it more epxected to happen?

Nobody knows the answer to that.

To make any particular calculation, you would have to have much more information concerning what you are sampling. And in general for any accurate prediction, you must have a good idea of the potential future variance or deviation (the sigma, σ). You need to know the range of future possibilities in order to know how much of a fluke your trial might be. For example, if the possible range was merely a 50/50 type of event, a 1 or 0, and you had 10 1’s out of a sample of 10, you could certainly surmise that it was merely a fluke or someone was cheating.

And in any case, the larger the sample, the greater the accuracy.

‘does that make it any more likely’ – the question is, ‘more than what?’

A small sample size is weak evidence, but evidence nonetheless. If your theory is that when I do X, Y should happen 50% of the time, but then you do X 10 times and Y only happens 2 times, that is evidence (if slight) against the idea that it’s 50% likely.

And yes, it could be a fluke. It can always be a fluke.

So, long story short: bigger samples sizes are better, flukes abound in small sample sizes (eg if you flip a coin twice, there’s a 50% chance that both flips will be the same side), but small sample sizes are still weak evidence.

You should get a book on introductory statistics maybe. Or bayesian analysis maybe…

Drop a rock off a cliff.

What is the probability of gravity? 50%? Does the rock sometimes stop midair, or travel upward?

10%, 25%, 99.9%, 99.9999999999999999999999999999999%?

To determine the probability of gravity is to determine its reality. 100%, it never stops. The objective, universal laws of existence, do not stop, and are never suspended, for the subjective delusions of humanity. God > Man, not Man > God.

Probable values concerning simple things and certainties [^^like gravity [on earth]], can be accurate relative to how much variety there is in the equation. The greater the variety, the less accurate those values can be.

We exist in a duality, the more you look into something the greater it will divide and fragment ~ generally.

The laws applicable to gravity probably don’t apply in the early universe, pre-universe, end-universe or the greater reality [encapsulating this and other universes] to wit gravity will probably have 0 effect.

_

And fairy dust has 0 effect on truly sinless people.
:icon-rolleyes:

Are you saying that gravity has an effect outside the universe? :-" Was there really any need to mock, when I was simply pointing out that everything is variable and subject to change?

If you want to mock me at least do it intellectually.

Everything is NOT variable and subject to change. There are no physical “parallel universes”/“multi-worlds”. There was no “pre-universe”, “early universe”, or will there be an “end universe”. Those are all fairy tales … amongst many more commonly taught today (worm-holes, time travel,…) under the guise of “theoretical physics”, meaning “imaginary science fiction to bemuse the masses” thus not to be taken seriously.

There was a beginning + entropy etc, so one would expect an end also. That there was a beginning means there must be something prior to that or we get onto the first cause issue. I don’t think there are parallel universes or time travel though, so we are agreed there. If you believe in God then there is something outside of the universe, no?

Absolutely false.

If there was anything “prior to the beginning”, then obviously that wasn’t the beginning. Listen to yourself.

That is merely a distinction between physical and conceptual (often erroneously called the “spiritual”). Conceptual things are not a part of the physical universe, such as a perfect circle or square. Gods, angels, demons, devils, and so on are merely part of a conceptual ontology, much like the “laws of physics” are not physical entities and thus not a part of the physical universe. They are concepts (scripturally called “angels” or “gods”). It’s just a different language.

Fairies, unicorns and the like are different from observable phenomena, but let’s be real. Prior to Jules Verne, trips to the moon , rockets, big flying birds who could carry people on their wings, were equally only conceptual.

Perhaps unicorns could somehow be attainable, by genetic engineering and cross breeding.

james

It was patently obvious that the premise of what i said was based upon the first cause issue i.e. That there cannot be a beginning without that which preceded it such to make it occur. Secondly that the physical universe did have a beginning if you accept the big bang theory? Yet due to the logical impossibility of first cause, there would have been something else prior to that, probably the previous universe and cycles thereof. Its like rebirth in concept.

Then there will be no way to transpose or communicate derivative informations between one persons conceptual thoughts, and another’s!? Like mobile phones for example. The conceptual thought occurs in the physical brain as an electrical signal carrying information containing said concept, this is then successfully communicated between individuals and devices. Concepts are ‘qualia’ or qualities in the world, but before we say they are purely ‘mental qualia’ we must remember that music and colour are qualities too. Then if you change their physics, you change the qualia [as with TV’s computers etc]. Concepts are mirrored in information, otherwise you are stating that they are not held in the physical brain, which is like saying music is not in the amplifier/speakers etc.

Is that what you are saying? :-"

_

“First Cause” means “most fundamental causal principle”, not “the first action that stemmed another action”.

No.

The physical universe can represent a concept with pictures, words, statues, data streams, whatever. Those are all physical objects that can be traded around. But a mind must examine each of those and decipher the concept that each represents. That is called “communication of in-form-ation”.

Yes but you knew how i meant it, a universe with a beginning must have a cause, which in turn must have a cause. Can you imagine an infinite value i.e. Of infinite energy, compared to all values measurable in the universe? It would have to have a base value of zero, and then we are speaking about my metaphysical existent eternity again. What else would we call ‘first cause’ in the sense I meant it? it is surely ontologically superior to name the former as 'the principle of first cause, and then name first cause as it simply is, no?

& you didn’t resolve that issue in your reply.

Do you agree with the big bang theory? …which had a beginning.

I hope you understand the philosophical importance of what you are saying here? Lets just focus on that term ‘represents’; is there a connection between the quality and the physical aspect, … Derivative informations are correlating one set of information to another via a physical medium which itself is information. So music from your stereo and concepts in your mind are classes of information, which in terms of music and light can be changed/adjusted by varying sliders on the tech your using. There are two main opposing considerations I have;

Info copies and translates derivative information - true or false?
That this is 100% transferral of info.

Info doesn’t know what it is copying - true or false?

One of these = ‘represents’.

_

As far as I can tell, you meant it the wrong way … and probably still do.

There is no such thing as a “universe with a beginning”. That is an absolute impossibility. There never was a universe with a beginning. There never will be a universe with a beginning. A universe cannot have a beginning. The concept is utter ignorance. Get it out of your head.

I don’t even know what that means. No, I can’t imagine infinity, nor can you or anyone.

WHAT would have a base value of zero? And what do you mean by “base value”? Things don’t have values. We assign values.

It has been a language and political issue for centuries. We don’t have the option to change that now. Millions of people are misled by language issues.

Which issue?

Hell no. How many times do I have to say it. The only possibility for anything LIKE a Big Bang would be a extremely huge explosion of perhaps extremely large black holes. But as far as a singularity (itself an impossibility) expanding into an entire universe, that is the Big Bullshit theory.

???

Sounds like just babble to me.

You are asking if information itself knows anything???
Emmmm … no, not in normal use of the language.

You claim the universe is infinite, and so there would surely be energy variables between 0 and infinity. compare this to any measurable value we know to exist etc.

I am basing my considerations upon accepted science. I wouldn’t be surprised if universes did end in a collapse of multiple black holes.
We do however know that the universe was infinite when it began, and is just the ticket for getting past the paradox; an infinite beginning/end.
If you are right i’d be interested to know how such an entity can exist? infinite sets can explain it in terms of objects, but when we are talking about energy variables between 0 and infinity, there would be insanely high values contrasted to existent ones. There must be something which limits it? ~ Here I am asking you for an answer not attacking the idea.

I couldn’t have said it simpler than the two points. :-" To have correct correlation of info, two bodies must be part of the same system, ergo concepts and qualia e.g. music are part of the same thing which is physical reality. You are attempting to make something have an affect; ‘concepts have an effect upon the physical world’, then stating the clear contradiction that they are distinct. They are distinct and play no part in the physical world, or they are contained in an informational exchange of properties.

_

What does “energy variables between 0 and infinity” mean? The phrase doesn’t make any sense or is simply too ambiguous.

There is no “accepted science” to the BB theory. It was gross speculation (by a priest, btw) and was laughed at. Long ago, they couldn’t see any reason to reject it, so they started promoting it. Since then they have found many reasons to reject it entirely. But the issue is that it was never science to begin with. It was just a wild notion due to what appeared to be redshifting from movement. They didn’t know at that time that redshift can be caused by other things.

Science is the art of VERIFYING hypotheses through observation. Science can never verify that anything in the past happened the way someone speculates, especially nothing like the beginning of the universe. The BB theory is NOT Science. It is 100% modern day mythology.

THERE WAS NO BEGINNING!!!
:icon-rolleyes:

It can exist simply because the opposite is totally impossible to exist at any time, pure homogeneity.

Again, this is just babble. I can’t make out what the hell you are asking. It sounds like complete nonsense. What the hell are “energy variables” supposed to be??

Who said that? And in what context? The idea of a concept affects the physical world because the thought in the brain (the physical representation) is a part of the physical world. The concept itself is not any part of the physical world, never was, and never will affect anything until a mind manifests it as a thought. That is why people keep secrets.

Values! It means what it says on the tin; given value or values = x between 0-∞, what is ‘x’? Where the question pertains to an issue regarding the vast numbers at the upper end of the scale, then compares them to the values we know exist in the universe. The detriment would be where such large values would swamp smaller energy values. Ergo therein lies the premise for a ‘0’ value for infinity. Is there anything not to clear there dear?

Data can be non-speculate.

Ok, i’ll go with you on this one because it makes my theories truer too lol. i’d just add ‘ultimately’ to that.

given value or values = x between 0-∞, what is ‘x’? >

There could be infinite sets, but what would restrict there being sets with vastly incomparable energy values?

There can be infinite sets + time, where the variables are like notes on a guitar, even if un-tuned chords will eventually be arrived at, and at random [a function of injectives]. This gives us both infinite sets and finite results. Now we can give limitedness which would denote a start and finish in some manner, such to denote the chord being struck. An infinite universe with finite duration, cyclicity.

Universe = finite/infinite.

Concepts are perhaps metaphysically real. If we have non existent reals like infinite sets, and that they determine the state of universe, then there is nothing to say they cannot be occupied with information in conceptual terms and as we know it.

_

So you meant “values” instead of “variables” … big difference. And yes, throughout space there would exist values of (quantity of) energy ranging from 0 to infinite. No space can exist without energy within it. Thus an infinite space must have infinite energy within it with finite portions of the universe having finite energy within them … an infinite number of them.

Again, all senseless babble.

Another non-sense question. Why are you trying to restrict “sets of energy”?

Again, you are trying to give the universe a beginning. There can be no beginning of the entire universe.

That would be:
Universe = Infinitesimal.
… non-sense … again.

That is merely a question of your chosen ontology, not of “what is”.

You can’t “have them” if they are “non existent”. And they certainly can’t determine anything if they are non-existent.

You can say that concepts “contain” information.