OT: An Existential Dilemma

[PvK]

Jack Simth is correct. I said only fight with them, but not to the exclusion of doing other things besides fighting.

You could, for example, blood hunt and lead slaves into battle for them to get hurt so they can become units so you can GoR them. If you take the challenge hyper-literally (as I expect everyone-is-Norfleet conspirators would want to), then one of the hard parts is actually getting any blood slave units, since I think you need to get them hurt, yet win the battle... not sure about that. You might be able to have them run away and end up as units back in an adjacent province.

Spells and items for the GoR'd ex-blood slaves would be allowed, and even mages casting buff spells on them. Seeking Arrow and such are grey areas. It would still be a massive accomplishment with them, but without them, it would be so much greater.

It does sort of beg the question of a seemingly-easier sub-problem, though, huh? Can you win without any fighting units? Again, legal questions abound, such as Ghost Riders, the Admiral, etc.

That doesn't really have the same panache as GoR'ing blood slaves to SC status and relying on massive amounts of luck and finesse, however.

PvK

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by PvK:
While it is true that we could all be Norfleet, it is perhaps more likely that... It's possible. Just not very likely.

Hmmm. Someone with more education in this area may care to correct me, but I believe that the above statement is untrue for a rather esoteric reason.

That reason is that the words "likely" and "possible" imply a probabalistic treatment of an existential question, which is invalid.

It is meaningless, for example, to conclude that there is a 60% chance that there is a god. Either there is a god or there isn't - there's no 60% about it.

The same applies to questions of historical fact. You can't say that its likely that the Great Flood occurred, because it has already either happened or not. What you can describe is your uncertainty in the matter, which is different (being a statement about your knowledge rather than about the alleged event).

Hmm. Time to go home and do my turn.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by PvK:
While it is true that we could all be Norfleet

Fortunetly for humanity, it is not physically possible. Unless you are playing with possibility that Norfleet have some god-like powers. In this case you would have one seriously sick in the head god, assuming 1/4 what he have been telling us about himself on this forum is true.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PvK:
[qb] While it is true that we could all be Norfleet, it is perhaps more likely that... It's possible. Just not very likely.

Hmmm. Someone with more education in this area may care to correct me, but I believe that the above statement is untrue for a rather esoteric reason.

That reason is that the words "likely" and "possible" imply a probabalistic treatment of an existential question, which is invalid.

It is meaningless, for example, to conclude that there is a 60% chance that there is a god. Either there is a god or there isn't - there's no 60% about it.

The same applies to questions of historical fact. You can't say that its likely that the Great Flood occurred, because it has already either happened or not. What you can describe is your uncertainty in the matter, which is different (being a statement about your knowledge rather than about the alleged event).

---

I am not an expert there myself but I believe that what you said about invalidness of probabalistic approach to an existential question such as wether the god exist or no, is correct.

However I think that you can approach in such matter the historical questions, such as wether graet flood or other global event happened there and than, or not. Granted, it would likely to be impossible to calcualte exact probablility, but you can, assuming that you posses enough historical related information, operate with terms such as "very likely",
"possible", "highly unlikely", etc.

Oh well, I hope I am answering the correct question here Zapmeister - midnight is not a good time to get existential. Time to hit the bed.

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
but you can, assuming that you posses enough historical related information, operate with terms such as "very likely", "possible", "highly unlikely", etc.

Mmm, I know people do use those terms when addressing questions of historical fact. My point was that they're misusing the terms to describe their confidence in their belief, rather than to quantify a probability. I think.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
In this case you would have one seriously sick in the head god

If God exists, I'm not placing much faith in his sanity anyway: I mean, what kind of whacko would do something like creating the universe? Even *I* am not that crazy: This is probably one of the worst things that's ever happened, given that it has made a lot of people very angry, and can thus be regarded as a bad move.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
but you can, assuming that you posses enough historical related information, operate with terms such as "very likely", "possible", "highly unlikely", etc.

Mmm, I know people do use those terms when addressing questions of historical fact. My point was that they're misusing the terms to describe their confidence in their belief, rather than to quantify a probability. I think.

---

Perhaps, to some degree. But there have to be some connection between the "pure probability" that you are searching for Zapmeister, and personal confidence of the professianals who posses all related knowledge and expertise in this specific matter, don't you think? Granted, often it maybe hard to express in exact numbers though.


Besides, let's assume for the sake of argument that you are right about historical facts. But than the same logic could be aplied to almost every other none-historical field as well. For example take jurisprudence. One could argue that the jury, (or professional judjes in some cases/countries) when they are declaring "guilty" or "not guilty" verdicts, based upon "beyond reasonable doubts" clause as requred by law, are also operating outside the field of probabilities. But if this is true, that they might as well deciding wether they like the guy or not, without listening to any evidence. Or even throw the coin and see if it is heads or tails. If these all are purely existantial matters and have nothing to do with probabilities than I think one could successefully argue for such aproaches over the ones that is currently employed world-wide. Do you agree?

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
This is probably one of the worst things that's ever happened, given that it has made a lot of people very angry, and can thus be regarded as a bad move.

I think you should acknowledge Douglas Adams as the author of this. It's not verbatim, but it's close enough IMHO.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
I think you should acknowledge Douglas Adams as the author of this. It's not verbatim, but it's close enough IMHO.

Douglas Adams is the author of the original quote, and I was not, in fact, quoting him verbatim. The original quote was "In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Perhaps, to some degree. But there have to be some connection between the "pure probability" that you are searching for Zapmeister, and personal confidence of the professianals who posses all related knowledge and expertise in this specific matter, don't you think? Granted, often it maybe hard to express in exact numbers though.

Certainly. In fact, questions of historical fact could be regarded as equivalent to existential questions. "Does the event 'The Great Flood' exist as an element in the history of our world?"

EDIT: Hmmm. I just realized that this does not in any way address the paragraph I quoted.

Besides, let's assume for the sake of argument that you are right about historical facts. But than the same logic could be aplied to almost every other none-historical field as well. For example take jurisprudence. One could argue that the jury, (or professional judjes in some cases/countries) when they are declaring "guilty" or "not guilty" verdicts, based upon "beyond reasonable doubts" clause as requred by law, are also operating outside the field of probabilities.

Indeed they are. They rely on beliefs formed during the examination of evidence. The expression "beyond reasonable doubt" underlines that, by placing a minimum level on the confidence in belief that is required. Probability is not involved.

My recollection of first year probability (irrelevent trivia: the lecturer was John Donaldson, father of Mary Donaldson, recently the Princess of Denmark) is that this field of mathematics was originally designed to help analyse and win gambling games.

It weights the tree of possibilities that extend from the present moment into the future. It does not say anything about isolated premises whose truth or falsehood is already set in stone.

[ May 25, 2004, 08:52: Message edited by: Zapmeister ]