Are you reading my posts or are you just responding emotionally? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Perhaps your problem is that you are not looking at this emotionally.

Yes, that is my position.

You have stated it is wrong and it needs to stop. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Wait, let me get this straight. You are telling me that I stated my own position wrong?

Now it is only a few post thick, I think I have stated my position several times.

I personally don't think you care much about the children, at least not as much as you over-hyped fear of your own imagination.

He wants secure borders. Period. Full STOP. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

And Hitler wanted to take over the world. Period. Full STOP.

The ends do not justify the means. These are children, it is our duty as adults to protect them.

You actually think destroying families is "better"? Is that really your potion?

You are right in that simply being in this country without appropriate documentation is not a crime. Neither is entering at a point of entry. But as soon as they enter illegally, are caught crossing the border and I think within 100 miles of the border, they have committed a crime. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Who cares? In what way does that justify ripping a family apart? And I don't mean legally, I mean morally? You keep asking what else do we do, regardless of the fact this is a new policy and a new tactic. Trump just needs stop doing it. It really is that simple. You act like if you can somehow prove it is legally justify then that morally justifies it; however, that is not so, it would still be evil.

Again I ask, what would you suggest we do? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

If you think changes need to be made fine, but children are not political barging chips, destroying families in the meantime to use as political pressure is morally wrong. Stop the new policy, then work on immigration reform. The only reason Trump is doing it this way is because while he lacks a soul himself he knows he can use the moral hang ups of the Dems to pressure them. It is sick and wrong. Nothing you have actually said justifies the continuation of this situation.

Again I ask, what would you suggest we do? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Your memory is only a few pages thick. Sorry it is insulting, but it is also the truth.

What?

This is about cyber security, so how is requiring voter ID suppose to stop that?

There is no evidence that this is true.

There were ad bots, which are ineffectual, promoting either candidate.

Russia is made up of many business entities. These entities also compete with each other. No different than US business entities that compete with each other for business in other parts of the world. This is also what lobbyists do.

One can pluck out the entities and isolate them from the others in order to suit one's political and business ends. — raza

What on Earth are you talking about?

The USIC released a statement that Russia was behind the e-mail compromise in an effort to disrupt and direct the US election. That was a joint statement of 17 different civilian and government intelligence agencies. Do you think that was in benefit of Trump? Was it done to damage Clinton? Let's use some common sense here. It is not a secret that Putin is no fan of Clinton, as she as proven herself as an assertive opponent of Russia. Even the Senate Intelligence Committee confirmed Russia's goal was to aid Trump and damage Clinton. That has not really been in question; the dispute is over possible collusion with Russia. You do understand the difference, right?

Is your memory only a few pages thick? This is a result of Trump's Zero-tolerance policy. The law does not always take children away and the most desirable goal is to always keep the children with their parents. If you run a stop sign should your children be taken away?

At any rate, all this talk about law is pointless, as it is MORALLY WRONG. Trump created this situation and he could stop it; the fact that he is allowing it to continue is just inhuman.

I thought you said you understood the point of the Russian investigation; clearly you don't.

The central focus is not Trump; investigating Trump is consequential and rightfully so. This is about Russia's meddling in our 2016 election and this interference has been confirmed by the FBI and the CIA. Considering Russia's clear intended aim was to aid Trump in the election, so obviously the Trump campaign should be under heavy scrutiny. You don’t need to be a detective to understand that line of thought.

Abandoning this investigation just because Trump is incredibly thin skinned, and allowing Russia to continue their behavior leaves American sovereignty exposed to a new age of mass political interference by a hostile foreign power. That is just stupid beyond belief, and yet the current administration and its mindless drones seem far more vested in party politics, and for those interest they are more than willing to leave us exposes to these threats.

However, you have made it clear that you loyalty is to Pussy Grabber and not America, and for that end you seem to eagerly engage in the nonsense this administration and its state media spins.

I do understand the actual purpose of it. It's part of the racket to protect criminals. — raza

I would love for you to substantiate that without the use of overly imaginative speculation on out of context news clips. As I don't think you really have a in-depth understanding here, or even a common understanding. I think your comprehension level on these matters is closer to wading-in-the-kiddie-pool.

Wait, can you even tell the difference between speculation and evidence?

Of course I am entitled to my own opinions, that was never in question.

The USA is doing what it has done since colonial times. The people find an excuse to label a minority group as outside the approved cultural circle and then use that as an excuse to treat them like crap.

With the Native Americans they were considerd outside Christendom and savages, which people used as an excuse to treat them like animals.

That was true with the blacks as well, but they later expanded on that with social Darwinism.

They said the gays and LGBTQ community were unnatural, mentally ill and also outside Christendom.

The main target today are the immigrants, they decided they are criminals, then use that as an excuse to get their racist fix. Using that as an excuse to be giant dick heads.

Maybe if Americans knew their history better we won't be stuck in this loop.

That is another straw-man. Two wrongs don't make a right. I am growing to seriously doubt your intelligence. I mean this should be basic stuff for a "philosopher".

It just seems like you don't understand why that slimy jerk Manafort is in jail. You don't seem to understand the actual purpose of the Russian investigation.

Mueller has already got 5 guilty pleas and 17 criminal indictments.You are so worried about that giant cry baby snowflake Donald Trump, that the reasons for the Russian investigation flies right over your head. If Trump is innocent he has nothing to worry about.

A process which does not have to include children hostages and tearing apart families. Just saying there has to be a "process" is not an argument at all as to why it has to be this process.

And to you the obvious and only solution is to take children as hostages?

That is the part that is flying right over your head. You are sitting here arguing immigration, while everyone else is appalled with the tactics that are being used.

This is not a simple difference of political ideologies; no matter where you stand on the issue any morally aware individual finds these tactics shocking, evil and way over the top. Yet here you are, acting like it is the same old conversation as always.

So because person X does not show up for court then your purposed solution is to take person Y's children away?

So that means if I run someone over then skip on bail we get to throw you in prison? Am I getting this right? I mean you are suggesting we punish unrelated individuals for someone's else crime, right?

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche

We don't solve our immigration issues by becoming monsters. Even if the right path is harder we still travel it because that is what moral people do.

Pretending this is the only option is you just being wilfully ignorant.

We can go back to treating it as a civil issue and not separate families.

That policy was in affect during the Obama administration as well. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You can try and candy coat a turd but a big steaming pile of crap is still a load.

The policy was and is for criminal cases, not civil cases. Trump and his goons are the ones that decided to treat these crossing as a criminal offense instead of a civil case. Furthermore, the Republicans control the House, the Senate, the Presidency and the Office of the Attorney General. They have all the power to stop this right now, just as easy as they started it.

The truth of the matter is that Trump is abusing children and destroying families to try and push his political agenda. He created this situation and now he is using these children as hostages. It is monstrous to anyone with a human soul.

Do you even have any clue why Manafort is in trouble? Go on, I'll wait while you Google it.

You'd think these MAGA people would be more concerned about the Russian interference in our politics than their precious Donald Trump, that is if their true aim is making America great. Russian threatens our sovereignty and independence, and not just that of the USA, but several other countries included. Instead of trying to undermine the FBI and the media, Trump should be trying to undermine Russian meddling. That is if his true goal was to further the interest of America; however, sadly Trump's goal has been and still is to further his own interest.

The truth is Trump's supporters have placed their king above America, above the law and above justice. This is not how we MAGA, and as joyful as they are now, I know that this country is full of people who understand all the sacrifices we have made to make it to where we are, and they are not about to throw all that away to simply shine in the popular politician flavor of the day. Some of us love this country and not the figure heads elected to leadership, and long after Trump is dead, these people and their children will still be pushing America down the correct path.

Speculating why so-and-so is upset proves nothing in regards to Mueller's ability to preform his job as required.

If the best you have is some off the wall strawman speculation, then you have nothing.

Also the arugment you are emphasizing is demanding proof a negative. Something else you should look up.

I prefer a Republican who is not at war with their fellow conturymen. We are all Americans, we should all be fighting on the same side in the same "territory." Further division is not a solution to our deepening polarization.

P(H | M1) = 1, right? And this is the thing about the double interview track: both them happen if and only if the coin lands tails. From your calculation, P(T | M2 v Tu) = 1, yes? But it should be P(T | M2) = P(T | Tu) = 1, and P(T) = P(M2) = P(Tu) = 1/2. You always get both on tails. You get them one at a time, but we don't necessarily care.

That space of three possibilities, {M1, M2, Tu} has three elements each of which has an unconditional probability of 50%. Conditioned on the whole space, they'll each be 33%. — Srap Tasmaner

This is why I keep saying it depends on how Beauty decides to consider her uncertainties.

Remember conditional probability is the the probability of event K given that event L has already occurred. Order matters.

So what is T given M2 or Tu? 50%

Hence, .50 +.50 +.50 = 1.5 > 1. The sum of probability cannot be greater than 1 and since P(H|M1)=P(T|M2)=P(T|Tu) we reallocate the credibility to 1/3 each.

That is when Beauty is considering the uncertainty of her location in time.

Now what if Beauty considers instead the uncertainty of H or T?

Then, purely for demonstration, what is M2 given the event T?

P(M2|T) = P(.25|.5) = .125/.5 = 1/4.

However, if Beauty was considering the uncertainty of H or T, and not her location in time, the only reason to consider the conditional probability of M2 would be for completion; practically she could end at the uncertainty of H or T.

The real issue here is not that we get two different yet seemly reasonable answers; this is not about 1/2 vs 1/3. What the Sleeping Beauty Problem demonstrates is that decision affects the outcome of her solution.

What I find interesting is that this decision also is very likely an unconscious decision. Which may be why we get people who are convinced it is 1/3 and people who are convinced it is 1/2. The unconscious mind made a decision for them on how to consider the probability, a decision that consciously they were never aware of.

So what? It's not a situation that arises. Neither she not the experimenters are ever in the position of knowing that the coin landed tails but wondering what day it is. Beauty only wonders what day it is to figure out how the coin landed. — Srap Tasmaner

If my position was that she somehow magically knew it was tails, then why would I claim it has a 50% uncertainty? If she knew it was tails it would be a 100% certainty and M2 = 50% = Tu with temporal uncertainty. The 50% is the uncertainty of T or H and the 25% is the uncertainty of M2 or Tu.

The conditional probability of tails given that it is M2 or Tu is P(T|M2)= P(.5|.25) = .125/.25 = 1/2 = P(T|Tu) which is equal to P(H). Both days still have the same 50% uncertainty when considering H or T. In fact from that direction all three days have the same uncertainty when considering H or T, which is where we get the 1/3 argument.

The interviews are not randomly distributed. — Srap Tasmaner

Randomly just means equal probability. Figured I should clear that up. In the technical sense when talking about random, it means each element in the sample space has an equal chance of being selected. So in the event of tails, on any given consideration of the interview between M2 and Tu Beauty, has a 25% uncertainty of being in either of them. It is 25% and not 50% because of the uncertainty in it being Tails. We are stacking uncertainties.

How it comes out all depends on the considerations of the uncertainties.

In the event of Tails, Beauty will be awakened on Monday and Tuesday, but due to the nature of the experiment she will not be able to tell the difference, either one is equally likely when interviewed. Hence P(M2) = P(Tu) =1/4. It is 1/4 as only a total of 50% was allotted to T.

This temporal uncertainty, is actually where the 1/3 argument is placed. If the uncertainty is about her location in time, and probability is the measure of uncertainty then shouldn't her sample space be {M, T1, T2}?

It all depended on which uncertainty Beauty decides to consider.

The 50% each applies to H and T; not the elements in the sets, but the sets themselves.

Let's look at this from the ground up.

A sample space is the set of all possible outcomes of a random process.

An event is a subset of that sample space.

Let E be the event and let S be the sample space.

Then the Equally Likely Probability Formula is:

P(E) = the number of outcomes in E/ the number of outcomes in S or P(E) = N(E)/N(S)

(N(R) is just the number of elements in R)

Now just to clear it up, in set theory {A,B,C} is not equal to {A,B,C,0}. Let {A,B,C} bet set 1, and let {A,B,C,0} bet set 2.

Consider,

We randomly select one element from each sample space, then our possible outcomes are:

For set 1: A or B or C

For set 2: A or B or C or 0

That means for set 2 there is a one in four chance of 0 being selected. Put that in the context of our problem and that really does not make any sense.

Now conditional probability is the the probability of event K given that event L has already occurred.

---


Consider this argument:


Our sample space is {H,T} with P(H)=N(H)/N(S) or P(H) = 1/2.

Let H equal the set {M1} and let T equal the set {M2, Tu}

Where,

M1 equals Monday and Heads
M2 equals Monday and Tails
Tu equals Tails and Tuesday.

So now our possible events are sets. Set H has one element and set T has two elements, each with a 50% chance of being selected. Then P(M2) or P(Tu), given the event T, by our Equally Likely Probability Formula is P(M2) = 1/4 and P(Tu) = 1/4. Given Tails she could be in P(M2) or P(Tu), so 1/4 + 1/4 = 1/2 therefore P(M2) + P(Tu) = 1/2 = P(T) = P(H).

. But since the probabilities are all equal, it doesn't matter how large the background sample space is (at least in a finite universe). — Andrew M

Oh really? So you think they are the same thing.

If your distribution is the same as Elga's then they should have the same center.

Let's find out, by comparing the means.

Egla's distribution: (1/3+1/3+1/3)/3=1/3

Your distribution: (1/3+1/3+1/3+0)/4= 1/4

So in your distribution, on average Beauty will get one out of every four attempts correct, because oddly enough you are actually suggesting zero is in that distribution of possible outcomes. When working with sets zero is not the same thing as null.

I'm suggesting that we should start with a background sample space that includes all possible combinations of days and coin toss outcomes and then assign probabilities according to a principle of indifference. — Andrew M

You forgot Heads and Wednesday, Heads and Thursday, Heads and Friday. . . . . and on forever.

Then do the same with Tails.

And in the process don't forget the terms on the days Beauty will be awakened AND interviewed (AKA the sample space), was defined before the experiment started.

You are misunderstanding, it is an event inside of an event. That is conditional probability, and that is also the reason you can never get away from T 50% and H 50%.

I think some of you beleive that Lewis and Elga are pushing numbers around to support their argument, but they are actually arguing between two different sample spaces.

If you want you could break it down like this:

This is your sample space {H,T}

In the event of T, which is 50% then you have a new sample space {M,Tu} where M and Tu have an equal chance of occurring. In the event of H your new sample space is just {M}.

However, that never removes the 50% of T or the 50% of H, those sill remain regardless.

You can follow conditional probability from there, but whatever you do, no amount of number pushing will change the 50% T and the 50% H. The only way to do that is to redefine the sample space, which is Elga's argument.

Can we just get back to SB now? — Srap Tasmaner

I have been talking about SB this entire time.

First a few terms:

You have a sample space, that is the total possible outcomes, then you have the event, that is the subset randomly selected from that sample space, then you have frequency of occurrences, which is just the proportion of the outcomes.

Lewis is very much arguing it is a simple coin flip with a sample space of {H,T}. Elga does not disagree with that but rather that when Beauty is awakened and interviewed then her temporal location becomes relevant. Elga then argues, that due to this the sample space then becomes {H1, T1, T2}; the periods in which she is awakened and interviewed.

When you see Lewis assign 1/4 to T1 and 1/4 to T2 then what are looking at is the frequency in which is he assigning to those two possible outcomes from the 1/2 in the event of tails. He saying that since being awakened on Monday and Tails and Tuesday and Tails is under the same event then you are equally likely to be in either one upon being awakened and interviewed. However, that does not mean they are pulled from a separate sample space. You have to understand that Monday Tails and Tuesday Tails are pulled from the same event of the coin landing on tails, which is 1/2.

To justify the 1/3 argument you need to give a good reason why the sample space should be from the periods of her being awakened and interviewed over the sample space of two sides of the coin.