Would someone be willing to translate these sentences from philosophy/maths into English? Or let me know how I can work it out for myself?
That is: P(cards not shuffled)P(cards in perfect order | cards not shuffled) >> P(cards shuffled)P(cards in perfect order | cards shuffled), even if my prior credence was that P(cards shuffled) > P(cards not shuffled), so I should update towards the cards having not been shuffled.
Similarly, if it seems to me that I’m living in the most influential time ever, this gives me good reason to suspect that the reasoning process that led me to this conclusion is flawed in some way, because P(I’m reasoning poorly)P(seems like I’m living at the hinge of history | I’m reasoning poorly) >> P(I’m reasoning correctly)P(seems like I’m living at the hinge of history | I’m reasoning correctly).
I think this type of writing puts a very high accessibility bar on these sentences. I fall into the class of people who might be expected to understand these formalisms (I work in programming, a supposedly mathsy job).
Imagine you play cards with your friends. You have the deck in your hand. You are pretty confident, that you have shuffled the deck. Than you seal the deck, and give yourself the first 10 cards. And what a surprise: You happen to find all the clubs in your hand!
What is more reasonable to assume? That you just happen do dray all the clubs, or that you where wrong about having suffeld the cards? Rather the latter one.
Compare this to:
Imagine, thinking about the HoH hypothesis. You are pretty confident, that you are good at long term-forecasting, and you predict, that the most influential time in history in: NOW?!
Here to, so the argument goes, it is more reasonable to assume, that your assumption of being good in forecasting the future, is flawed.
Would someone be willing to translate these sentences from philosophy/maths into English? Or let me know how I can work it out for myself?
I think this type of writing puts a very high accessibility bar on these sentences. I fall into the class of people who might be expected to understand these formalisms (I work in programming, a supposedly mathsy job).
Imagine you play cards with your friends. You have the deck in your hand. You are pretty confident, that you have shuffled the deck. Than you seal the deck, and give yourself the first 10 cards. And what a surprise: You happen to find all the clubs in your hand!
What is more reasonable to assume? That you just happen do dray all the clubs, or that you where wrong about having suffeld the cards? Rather the latter one.
Compare this to:
Imagine, thinking about the HoH hypothesis. You are pretty confident, that you are good at long term-forecasting, and you predict, that the most influential time in history in: NOW?!
Here to, so the argument goes, it is more reasonable to assume, that your assumption of being good in forecasting the future, is flawed.