/lit/ - Literature

>>15659867
>Le philosopher said
Don't care. Keep your mouth shut when it comes to STEM, litcuck.

>>15659867
>You have two options: either (1) Play Russian roulette, meaning you put one bullet into a six-shooter, spin the chambers, then put it to your head and pull the trigger, or (2) Play Soviet roulette, meaning you do the same thing but with six bullets this time. There's an 83.33333...% chance of survival in the first one and something like a 0.01% chance in the second, as the gun might malfunction. You could live or die in either, though, therefore it makes no difference which one you choose.
This is how retarded you sound and also pic related is you

>>15659894
>I will remain willfully ignorant and this makes me right because I can crunch numbers

>>15659867
Watch the mythbusters episode about it. They should definitively that switching increases your chances of winning dramatically.

>>15659867
Based empiricist poster

>>15659867
Based AS FUCK.
>>15659894
Seethe more, phlogistonfag.

>>15659867
I can't fathom this brainlet post. Am I missing something? Many times it seems something is absurd, but it's actually based. I don't think this is one of those times, but I want someone to attempt to convince me otherwise.

>>15659897
>Oh boy, The Numbers told me that I should pick Russian Roulette, so I will do that...
>Right before you pull the trigger and die you see me pulling the trigger of the Soviet Roulette gun and it malfunctions
Literally cucked by math.

>>15659867
I agree that probability is very hard to rationally justify in the real world, outside of mathematical models, but still I'm convinced that it's more rational to switch than not.

>>15659867
Everything is probability.
You are seeing with your eyes is your first time eyes and brain doing a statistical analysis of the photons hitting your eyes.
Without probability there is nothing.

>>15659867
Read Hume

>>15659867
there is a goat behind one door, you can either choose one door and if its behind that door you win, alternatively you can choose two doors and if it is behind either of those two doors you win, which do you choose you dumb bitch?

>>15659977
I choose one door.

>>15659867
If you don't believe the mathematicians, you can simulate the whole thing yourself on your kitchen table with a couple of opaque cups and marbles, or really anything else you have at home. After a few trials, you will prove yourself wrong before your very eyes.

>>15659867
It's not about obeying probability models, it's in the fact that out of the two you didn't choose, the door that opened was one of the worst case scenarios. This is slightly better than just being offered a 1 in 2, because the fact that the door you'd switch to wasn't picked slightly proves that it is safe. You don't even have to be a mathematician to rationally justify switching doors.

The reason so many people get tricked doesn't have much to do math, but instead distrust and reverse psychology. IE why would they be trying to get you to change your choice after you've made it, if not for the fact you made the right one? Monty hall problem is more of a math gimmick than anything.

>>15659968
>Everything is probability
Lol you expect me to take this statement seriously?

>>15660024
what is with people being purposefully stupid to try and own other people?

>>15659977
One door. The goat is either behind the door/s or it isn't. It doesn't matter how many you open.

>>15660155
It's the /v/ style of communication. There is no other way to be noticed, and likely these posters are lonely.

if instead of one door thousand doors were opened, it would be immediately visible why switching is good. low amount of doors creates the confusion, not the difficulty of the problem itself.

I wrote horribly unoptimized proof you can simulate yourself

cpp.sh/5d5ht

>>15659867
>It is because we do not live in a probability experiment; we live in a concrete world where everything has a contingent position and there is no random chance to decide where the goat will go. You can be wrong while following the 'optimal' choice, and that alone is enough to show that probability is nothing but a fiction of our animal brains. There is no assurance that the future will resemble the past.
sorry Phil brainlet but Quantum Mechanics has time and again empirically proven that the world we live in is probabilistic in nature.

Einstein and Hume were wrong, get over it.

>>15660141
Yes

>>15660516
Empiricism is all you'll ever have, because probability is fundamentally improvable.

>>15659903
>I will remain willfully ignorant and this makes me right because I can't crunch numbers

>>15660589
>I'm not wrong, there's not actually such a thing as "truth". Checkmate STEMtards

>>15660599
OP argument remains unrefuted

>>15660589
Probability has been empirically proven, try again.

>>15660657
>empirically proven

>>15659894
based

>>15660661
Yes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
>In modern physics, the double-slit experiment is a demonstration that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles; moreover, it displays the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena.

>>15660669
demonstrates =/= proven
this is why stemkids need to read hume

>>15660637
You're the ones claiming there are fundamental unknowns in the universe, sounds disingenuous to me.

>it's not that we can't determine what will happen, it's that it's impossible because of probabilities
How did the sciences fall so low?

>>15660683
>empirically proves probability
>durrrr akshually hoom said...
face it, your philosophical father figure was wrong, STEM-Chads have you shook.

>>15660386
>50+ lines
Behold!
https://scastie.scala-lang.org/HQd4tz3lQ0mtfKwaYMN47w

>>15660699
>its science fault for reality being a probability density function
facts don't care about your feelings

>>15660728
i'll give you a hint: induction. you know, that thing the sciences are built on

I felt so smart for simulating this in python when I was 15

>>15660758
I know what the problem of induction is and its a spook that science has moved pass

STEM built the computer you are using right now, philosophers didn't

simple as

>>15660203
It does. It's one of the universes bullshit things that make no sense.

>>15660850
>newtonian physics got refuted
cope

>>15659867
say you got a deck of cards (52 cards). You can win the prize by picking the right card. You pick a card, and 50 other cards that aren't it get removed. Are you going to switch?
If you don't get it now you are a brainlet

>>15659867
>>15659916
>>15659919
imo, this is probably one of the most retarded things i've read lol
probability is rationally justified
yeah, we don't live in an experiment, but we can build models and predict things with probability
>tfw the probability of a dick appearing in your mouth is greater than you being rich

>You can be wrong while following the 'optimal' choice,
It's less likely that you make the wrong choice if you choose the 'optimal' choice
>that alone is enough to show that probability is nothing but a fiction of our animal brains.
What did you think? That probabiliy get concrete and immutable results? How long did it take you to realize this lol
> There is no assurance that the future will resemble the past.
yes. but also I need to say here that the future is built on the past. what's your point?

It only works if there are 4 or more doors, 3 doors will always be 1/3.

Bros... conditional probability is like the second thing you learn in any probability course/textbook... why are your embarrassing Hume with your retardation?

>>15659867
Based Hume.
>>15659894
Cope.

>>15659867
Was planning on reading Hume due to his influence on Kant, this thread convinced me to not waste my time. Thanks op!

>>15659894
Impotent manchild.

>>15659867
>What is QM?

>>15659867
HUME DOESN'T ACTUALLY SAY YOU SHOULDN'T RELY ON PROBABILITY YOU FUCKING PSEUD READ THE DAMN ENQUIRY AND TREATISE COVER TO COVER HE SAYS PYRRHONIAN SKEPTICISM IS UNTENABLE AND SAYS WE DO, CAN, AND SHOULD PROCEED ON THE BASIS OF 'NATURAL BELIEFS' AND CALLS THIS MITIGATED SKEPTICISM for fucks sake why are the /lit/ Hume threads always run by pseuds, the Kant and Hegel and Schopenhauer threads actually have people who read them, you fuckers should really read Hume and stop embarrassing yourselves.

>>15659867
Ok, let’s both play the MTP 100 times each. I’ll enjoy my extra cars, and you can enjoy your extra goats as per Hume

>>15660774
How are you holding up now?

>>15659867
Hey dude, want to play poker or any game of chance with money on the table against me?

>>15661254
only explanation that ever made sense to my tiny walnut brain, ty anon

Can someone please explain to me in layman's terms, because nobody understands QM jargon, how you "prove" randomness in the universe. Aren't randomness and probability just a human method of describing the unknown? How do you cross the gap from "the results are influenced because of forces beyond our understanding, thus we can only make predictions within a range" to "we can fundamentally only ever make predictions within a range, because at the quantum level causation doesn't exist"?

Have scientists actually detected randomness itself? Did they give up and say "we have used all means to find an underlying cause but cannot thus we assume it's random"? Is it a conclusion derived from applying wave particle duality to existing models? These threads are always someone going to a non-/sci/ board and posting articles that nobody can read, I've never seen an actual conversation over why "true randomness" is an intellectually-honest concept.

>>15659867
Why do anti-science humanities retards have so much trouble with the idea that the map is not the territory?

>>15659867
based. but from a game theory perspective there is a 2/3 chance if you switch because the host imparts information by opening one of the doors with goats in it. Say it's in 2 and you pick either 1 or 3: he's going to show you the one you didn't pick which fucks the whole game up. It's like rolling a die and the host cutting a bit off in mid air.

>>15664234
I think you are looking at this from the wrong point of view. I blame pop-sci for giving many people this point of view.

Physics does not why the universe works the way it does. Physics does not say atoms are made of protons and neutrons and that they are made of quarks.

What physics says is: if suppose of a system with these fundamental properties and these constituents parts, that system closely describes how the universe works.

But it is true "randomness and probablity" are a fundamental part of quantum field theory, and in the framework of quantum field theory it has been shown that this randomness is needed and cannot be described by some unknown hidden information. (Look up bells theorem).

>>15664240
dilate, deleuzian

>>15660043
the system needs to be disturbed by an aware entity (the host) so it's not a purely mathematical simulation

>>15659867
Odd bait, wasn't sure where you were going with this. You could also have added a bit about MWI -- no matter what you do, every possible outcome will be realized in some branch anyway, so the global sum of utility is a constant.

>>15661254
You are already a brainlet if you need to increase the number of options in order to "get it".

If you can't understand the Monty Hall problem, imagine there are 500 doors instead of 3.

At the end, when there are 2 doors left, if you still keep your original choice, what do you think your odds are? 1/2? Absolutely not. You made that pick back when there were 500 possible choices.

If you decide to take the other door, now it's actually 1/2.

>>15661254
The OP's point is that even if you switch, you can still be wrong.

>>15664407
If you need to "add more options", you don't understand the problem in the first place.

>If you decide to take the other door, now it's actually 1/2.
Lol, no.

>>15664366
You can literally do a pure mathematical simulation

import random

def run_trial(switch_doors, ndoors=3):
chosen_door = random.randint(1, ndoors)
if switch_doors:
revealed_door = 3 if chosen_door==2 else 2
available_doors = [dnum for dnum in range(1,ndoors+1)
if dnum not in (chosen_door, revealed_door)]
chosen_door = random.choice(available_doors)

return chosen_door == 1

def run_trials(ntrials, switch_doors, ndoors=3):
nwins = 0
for i in range(ntrials):
if run_trial(switch_doors, ndoors):
nwins += 1
return nwins

ndoors, ntrials = 3, 10000
nwins_without_switch = run_trials(ntrials, False, ndoors)
nwins_with_switch = run_trials(ntrials, True, ndoors)

print('Monty Hall Problem with {} doors'.format(ndoors))
print('Proportion of wins without switching: {:.4f}'
.format(nwins_without_switch/ntrials))
print('Proportion of wins with switching: {:.4f}'
.format(nwins_with_switch/ntrials))

>>15664432
>>15664396
The fuck are you rambling about?

>>15664452
>random.randint
Code depends on probability.

>>15664488
Increasing the number of options doesn't change anything fundamentally.

>>15659867

Well this is basically true if you only do it once
But if you do it 1000 times well it's still not a truly random chance if you want to be pedantic but putting that pedantry aside ostensibly yeah it is pretty much a random chance

The Monty Hall problem is trivially easy to understand, when explained properly. People usually leave out the key detail that Monty Hall can only open the door without the prize, and that he can’t open your door.
I’ll explain it in simple terms:
There are three possibilities at first: you picked fake#1, you picked fake#2, or you picked the prize.
If you picked fake#1, Monty Hall will open the door of fake#2, and switching will give you the prize.
If you picked fake#2, Monty Hall will open the door of fake#1, and switching will give you the prize.
If you picked the prize, Monty Hall will open either fake#1 or fake#2, and switching will lose you the prize.
So in 2/3 of the possible events, switching will get you the prize. Therefore switching is the better option.

>>15664343
Thanks for the answer.
>Physics does not why the universe works the way it does. Physics does not say atoms are made of protons and neutrons and that they are made of quarks.
>What physics says is: if suppose of a system with these fundamental properties and these constituents parts, that system closely describes how the universe works.
So it builds a theoretical model, and then tests it empirically? Am I interpreting that accurately?
>But it is true "randomness and probablity" are a fundamental part of quantum field theory, and in the framework of quantum field theory it has been shown that this randomness is needed and cannot be described by some unknown hidden information. (Look up bells theorem).
So is it accurate to say "our best scientific model, perhaps by far, has been determined by the scientific community incompatible with a hidden variable theory (that is to say anything other than pure probability is makes the model less rather than more predictive), and thus probability is of fundamental necessity to its optimal function (predictiveness)"?

IE, even if there were a theoretical possibility of breaking quantum probability, it would first necessitate building an extremely different model? I guess what I'm wondering is, is there any way we can say whether this is truly probability or our current model hitting a major dead-end?

>>15664616
That detail is a bit of a cheat isn't it? After all, even if it were truly random it's still better to switch each time. If he opens the goat door you're more likely to win, if he opens the winning door it doesn't make a difference.

>>15664616
>open either fake#1 or fake#2, and switching will lose you the prize.
These are two different options.

>>15664669
What do you mean “cheat”? The point of the thought experiment is that he opens the goat.
>>15664740
What do you mean? The outcome is the same.

>>15664814
>The outcome is the same
No, the winning door is different.

>>15664829
Are you retarded? Read the post again. The three options are: YOU PICKED GOAT1, GOAT2, or THE PRIZE.
>IF YOU PICKED GOAT1, AND GOAT2 IS REVEALED, THEN SWITCHING GIVES YOU PRIZE
>IF YOU PICKED GOAT2, AND GOAT1 IS REVEALED, SWITCHING GETS YOU THE PRIZE.
>IF YOU PICKED THE PRIZE, AND EITHER GOAT1 or GOAT2 ARE REVEALED, THEN SWITCHING LOSES YOU THE PRIZE
IN 2 OF THE 3 POSSIBILITIES SWITCHING IS BETTER

>>15664814
It helps people make the right choice, but distracts them from why it works. The fact of the matter is that he didn't "have" to pick a goat, just the fact that a goat was picked incidentally is evidence that the other door is a better choice. In other words "he can't open the door with a prize" is not a key detail at all, "he did open a door without a prize" is the key detail. It's a crutch to get the right answer.

>>15664616
I think the good way to understand it is imagining that there are more doors, for example, 100. You choose a door, then the guy opens 98 doors leaving yours and another one. You obviously would switch in that case.

>>15664953
Well within the realm of the thought experiment, the host cannot open the door with the prize. But yes, I understand your point.

>>15664740
They are, but both are already contingent on a situation that has a 1 in 3 chance of occurring. If you work backwards from the assumption that both are as likely as the other two possibilities, you have to conclude that there is a 1/2 chance of picking the prize on your first try.

>>15664637
Anyone? Is probability law or a limitation on modern theory?

>>15659867
>if you study for the test you have a higher chance of not failing than if you don't, but fuck probability, it doesn't matter!
Try living without taking probability into account and tell me how it works out for you, retard

>>15659867
Nah dog, Hume was wrong. OP always has been, and always will be a faggot.

>>15659897
This
Why are philosophers so annoyed that they don't know everything and just have to take an educated guess at what the truth is. Statistics is just admitting that you don't know what's going to happen but that given what you do know about the situation at hand you could determine that one outcome is more likely than another. Sure the truth is the truth regardless of statistics, but statistics are fundamentally epistemological and not metaphysical.

>>15660733
>Reality IS a human interpretation of reality
kek

>>15665631
Hume's point is making the "best guess" is an illusion and that actual truth would be knowing the answer directly, IE by cheating.

would Hume understand the blank note

>>15661012
he's right though

>>15663454
flunked out of college and work nigh shift in a factory

>>15659867
You're given more information upon receiving the option to switch. You know the host can't open a door with the prize behind it, as well as that he can't open your door either way. Ergo, him opening the door says something positive about the door neither of you picked, but only neutral about the door you're on, each of which were originally balanced. You don't need to understand probability in the first place to understand it, probability is just a means of quantification.

Has this bit of troll /sci/ence been applied?
>it's a television show so the choice you pick is irrelevant because the folks behind Monty Hall are going to pick that which works best for the show

>>15665216
No, changing the number of options does not fundamentally change the problem.

>you shouldn't bother doing what's most likely to succeed because it still might not
oh okay i guess i'll give up on breathing then, so far it's seemed like a good strategy but apparently that doesn't mean anything

>>15665867
See this is the true reason Hume is right, and /sci/ is wrong. Imagine thinking a game show isn't rigged.

>>15664953
That's not correct. If he flipped a coin to determine which door to open, switching is no longer rationally required.

>>15665532
Bell's theorem rules out locality. It has nothing to do with randomness.

>>15665667
You don't know what you're talking about.

>>15660073
You forget that this "problem" only exists on paper. The game show host doesn't have to open any doors and can still manipulate you into switching or staying.

>>15665941
A lot of people are losing sight of the fact that the host can actually rape you. Stay safe out there, /lit/izens.

>>15660516
Literally it's not a proof the world is random. There is a difference between a random model suiting a set of data vs a set of data being random.
The distribution of primes matches a random logarithmic distribution in many settings, and yet we all know primes are not random and are very well defined.

Stop pretending to dabbling in a realm of though that you lack the mental faculties to understand.

This problem is irrelevant in the real world.

>>15659867
you are damaging the reputation of my favourite fat scottish man

>>15664740
You're correct that there are four possibilities, but mistaken if you think all possibilities are equally likely. The first two each have a probability of 1/3 (which should be obvious) but the last two each have a probability of 1/6 because they result from a 1/3 chance followed by a 1/2 chance. 1/3*1/2=1/6. So the chance of either of these two options occuring is 1/6+1/6=1/3.

>>15660864
Could it be, instead, that it is *you,* anon, who "makes no sense?" I, myself, strongly suspect it.

>>15665908
Without a coinflip there are two datasets
>you picked the car and switching is wrong
>you picked a goat and switching is guaranteed correct
Adding a coinflip simply
>splits "you picked the car" into two halves, but each half you're still wrong by switching either way, thus it's a redundant difference
>add a new subset where you picked a goat and he opens the car, switching is neither right nor wrong as you get a goat either way
>when you picked a goat and he opened a goat, you're still guaranteed to get a car
There is no new scenario in which switching becomes incorrect, him choosing randomly or intentionally does not change anything. Him opening a goat is innately all the information you need to switch choices.

Either the prize is behind the door or it isn't. Changing the number of doors doesn't affect this. It is heartening that at least a few here understand this.

>>15666553
>when a retard with barely any understanding of probability tries to sound smart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lb-6rxZxx0
what bunch of brainlets lit are.

>>15666494
>Pick X
>he opens goat at true random
>either 1/3 you chose the car, so he had a 100% chance of opening a goat, thus you have a 1/3 of being right not switching
>or 2/3 you chose a goat, he was 50% likely to open a goat, there's a 1/3 likelihood that switching of being right
>or 2/3 you chose a goat, and he chooses the car 50% of the time, you automatically lose
The probability of switching and not switching is the same if he can open the car. It's a trick question.

>>15666598
So my post made you feel so insecure that you:
a) felt the need to respond
b) called me a retard
c) projected your own ideas onto my motivation for making the post
Is that everything or did I miss something?

>>15666494
Wrong. If the host selects randomly, and happens to open a goat, the probability the car is behind your door is now 1/2. It is only because the host deliberately selects the remaining goat to open that your odds remain the same 1/3 while what was once 2/3 probability across 2 doors condenses down to a single door.

>>15666656
>The probability of switching and not switching is the same if he can open the car.
False. Only if he can open the car does it become advantageous to switch.

>>15660073
This is a great explanation, thanks.

>>15660294
>>15661254

This too. Probability gets a lot more confusing at low sample freqs

>>15660850
>STEM built the computer you are using right now, philosophers didn't
Philosophers built the logic that STEM uses

>>15664413
I think I see what OP is getting at. It is easy to get caught up in the math and start subconsciously thinking that each door hides 1/3 of a goat, Schrödinger's cat is half dead, etc. Kudos to OP for making an honest-to-God postulate instead of a rhetorical tar baby.

>>15659867
Absolutely based empiricism anon. FUCK stem brainlets itt

>>15660155
>this nigger doesnt want a free goat
The jew fears the indoor goat farmer, anon.

>>15660850
>STEM built the computer you are using right now, philosophers didn't
This is bait, right? You don't actually believe that, right?

>>15659867
it's a fucking thought experiment that kinda works to explain quantum mechanics, akin to the cat one. Why do lit and fine arts kids hate stem kids so much, it's not our fault a four year degree is so wealth gated that we gotta skip out on actually cool classes

>>15667672
I'm not gonna lie though, fuck writing papers in timed finals, who the fuck was like yeah that's a good way to test someone's knowledge

>>15659867
It’s not a matter of induction, models, or the past, it’s a matter of logic.
If you chose the door with the prize behind it and you switch, you lose. If you chose a door with no prize behind and you switch, you win. There are more doors with no prizes behind them than doors with prizes behind them. Even if your door choice is entirely nonrandom, whether you win or lose the prize is still determined by whether you switch or stay, so your decision to either switch or stay is still relevant. Your reasoning is shoddy.