+- Lookism (https://bookism.net)
+-- Forum: Lookism Forums (https://bookism.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Shitty Advice (https://bookism.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: the bayesian interpretation of probability is so based (/showthread.php?tid=1914)
Pages:
1
2
the bayesian interpretation of probability is so based - MysteriousWeeb420 - 08-05-2022
it's the formal "well that's just like your opinion bro" lol
RE: the bayesian interpretation of probability is so based - Altruist - 08-05-2022
theology and science are as interchangeable as time* and space (observed through the prism of special relativity)
* speed is just a subset of time, and mass of space
RE: the bayesian interpretation of probability is so based - MysteriousWeeb420 - 08-05-2022
(08-05-2022, 04:38 PM)used condom Wrote: theology and science are as interchangeable as time* and space (observed through the prism of special relativity)
* speed is just a subset of time, and mass of space
who would you trust more: a scientist or a theologian?
RE: the bayesian interpretation of probability is so based - MVP - 09-05-2022
Yes indeed
RE: the bayesian interpretation of probability is so based - Altruist - 09-05-2022
(08-05-2022, 04:44 PM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:(08-05-2022, 04:38 PM)used condom Wrote: theology and science are as interchangeable as time* and space (observed through the prism of special relativity)
* speed is just a subset of time, and mass of space
who would you trust more: a scientist or a theologian?
in this era, a scientist, clearly
i see you are still struggling to grasp my view on this topic. happens to brainwashed dogmatists
RE: the bayesian interpretation of probability is so based - MysteriousWeeb420 - 09-05-2022
(09-05-2022, 01:23 AM)used condom Wrote:I understand it but I think it's stupid(08-05-2022, 04:44 PM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:(08-05-2022, 04:38 PM)used condom Wrote: theology and science are as interchangeable as time* and space (observed through the prism of special relativity)
* speed is just a subset of time, and mass of space
who would you trust more: a scientist or a theologian?
in this era, a scientist, clearly
i see you are still struggling to grasp my view on this topic. happens to brainwashed dogmatists
there was sufficient advancement in human knowledge and change in approach during scientific revolution that separation is justified
RE: the bayesian interpretation of probability is so based - Altruist - 09-05-2022
(09-05-2022, 01:54 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:(09-05-2022, 01:23 AM)used condom Wrote:I understand it but I think it's stupid(08-05-2022, 04:44 PM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:(08-05-2022, 04:38 PM)used condom Wrote: theology and science are as interchangeable as time* and space (observed through the prism of special relativity)
* speed is just a subset of time, and mass of space
who would you trust more: a scientist or a theologian?
in this era, a scientist, clearly
i see you are still struggling to grasp my view on this topic. happens to brainwashed dogmatists
there was sufficient advancement in human knowledge and change in approach during scientific revolution that separation is justified
there is nothing unique in that separation, us perceiving it that way is just its operative function
nor is it a once in eternity phenomenon
so obv you arent quite there
RE: the bayesian interpretation of probability is so based - MysteriousWeeb420 - 09-05-2022
(09-05-2022, 02:03 AM)used condom Wrote:(09-05-2022, 01:54 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:(09-05-2022, 01:23 AM)used condom Wrote:I understand it but I think it's stupid(08-05-2022, 04:44 PM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:(08-05-2022, 04:38 PM)used condom Wrote: theology and science are as interchangeable as time* and space (observed through the prism of special relativity)
* speed is just a subset of time, and mass of space
who would you trust more: a scientist or a theologian?
in this era, a scientist, clearly
i see you are still struggling to grasp my view on this topic. happens to brainwashed dogmatists
there was sufficient advancement in human knowledge and change in approach during scientific revolution that separation is justified
there is nothing unique in that separation, us perceiving it that way is just its operative function
nor is it a once in eternity phenomenon
so obv you arent quite there
why do we perceive anything as separate? because we want to
RE: the bayesian interpretation of probability is so based - Munificent - 09-05-2022
could you elaborate?
RE: the bayesian interpretation of probability is so based - MysteriousWeeb420 - 09-05-2022
(09-05-2022, 02:27 AM)Munificent Wrote: could you elaborate?
essentially probabilities aren't real, they are just subjective interpretations of how likely an event is
RE: the bayesian interpretation of probability is so based - Munificent - 09-05-2022
(09-05-2022, 02:29 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:(09-05-2022, 02:27 AM)Munificent Wrote: could you elaborate?
essentially probabilities aren't real, they are just subjective interpretations of how likely an event is
isnt this self evident?
everything that happens has a 100% probability of happening, probability is just a tool we use to understand phenomena with our limited knowledge
is there even any other 'interpretation' of probability other than bayesian?
RE: the bayesian interpretation of probability is so based - Honest - 09-05-2022
I remember writing something for myself about probability a while ago.
I think it was a criticism of the belief of probability as an objective force, rather than a tool used in predicting future events; it's pretty silly to say "it could have happened differently", while taking probability into account; any outcome that occurred always had a 100% probability of occurring.
RE: the bayesian interpretation of probability is so based - MysteriousWeeb420 - 09-05-2022
(09-05-2022, 02:32 AM)Munificent Wrote:you are being dogmatic. the true nature of randomness in the universe is not understood(09-05-2022, 02:29 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:(09-05-2022, 02:27 AM)Munificent Wrote: could you elaborate?
essentially probabilities aren't real, they are just subjective interpretations of how likely an event is
isnt this self evident?
everything that happens has a 100% probability of happening, probability is just a tool we use to understand phenomena with our limited knowledge
is there even any other 'interpretation' of probability other than bayesian?
yeah, classical, frequentist, propensity
RE: the bayesian interpretation of probability is so based - Munificent - 09-05-2022
(09-05-2022, 02:44 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:(09-05-2022, 02:32 AM)Munificent Wrote:you are being dogmatic. the true nature of randomness in the universe is not understood(09-05-2022, 02:29 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:(09-05-2022, 02:27 AM)Munificent Wrote: could you elaborate?
essentially probabilities aren't real, they are just subjective interpretations of how likely an event is
isnt this self evident?
everything that happens has a 100% probability of happening, probability is just a tool we use to understand phenomena with our limited knowledge
is there even any other 'interpretation' of probability other than bayesian?
yeah, classical, frequentist, propensity
yeah, i considered that.
arent classical, frequentist etc just different ways to define probability, not what probability actually measures?
RE: the bayesian interpretation of probability is so based - MysteriousWeeb420 - 09-05-2022
(09-05-2022, 02:49 AM)Munificent Wrote:they are interpretations. ie wtf does a 50% chance mean(09-05-2022, 02:44 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:(09-05-2022, 02:32 AM)Munificent Wrote:you are being dogmatic. the true nature of randomness in the universe is not understood(09-05-2022, 02:29 AM)MysteriousWeeb420 Wrote:(09-05-2022, 02:27 AM)Munificent Wrote: could you elaborate?
essentially probabilities aren't real, they are just subjective interpretations of how likely an event is
isnt this self evident?
everything that happens has a 100% probability of happening, probability is just a tool we use to understand phenomena with our limited knowledge
is there even any other 'interpretation' of probability other than bayesian?
yeah, classical, frequentist, propensity
yeah, i considered that.
arent classical, frequentist etc just different ways to define probability, not what probability actually measures?