I have flipped a coin and know the result. I will let you bet on it with a 2:1 payout if you win. However, I decide how much you have to bet, and only after you tell me your guess.
Should you bet? — Michael
1. We pick an envelope at random
2. There's a 50% chance that my envelope is the X envelope and a 50% chance that my envelope is the 2X envelope.
3. I open my envelope and see £10
4. From 2 and 3, there's a 50% chance that my £10 envelope is the X envelope and a 50% chance that my £10 envelope is the 2X envelope. — Michael
This is correct when waking up just once, so why not also when possibly waking up twice? — Michael
The OP is referring to the fact that congressional legislation is nearly always (something like >90% of the time) in line with what the very wealthy wish. — MindForged
Notice how you've decided (correctly) not to consider Heads + Tuesday and argue that in my example there's a 1/3 chance of it being heads. Why the inconsistency? — Michael
Well, the point is that the government is serving interests other than that of the common folk. — Posty McPostface
I’m saying that if it’s heads then only I’m asked and if it’s tails then I’m asked and 1,000 other people are asked. — Michael
But that doesn't mean that there was a 1/3 chance of getting a red ball. — Michael
This is why I suggested the alternative experiment where we don't talk about days at all and just say that if it's heads then we'll wake her once (and then end the experiment) and if it's tails then we'll wake her twice (and then end the experiment). There aren't four equally probable states in the experiment. — Michael
I think the issue is that the goals of "the government" are not aligned with the interest of the common folk. I call this the alignment problem. — Posty McPostface
I never stated belief in the claim to be false. I originally stated, " I do not believe a God exists ". This is NOT the same as, " I believe NO God exists " - These are two different claims. Or you can look at it this way.
Claim: God exists
Me: I don't accept that claim as true. — chatterbears
I'd suggest researching a little more on the burden of proof — chatterbears
What are you talking about? Explain to me how the burden of proof rests on the person who does not believe the person making the claim. You seem to not understand the burden of proof and where it rests. It rests on the person making the claim, not the person who doesn't accept the claim as true. — chatterbears
If you claim that you are an atheist, you surrender the bases on which to make claims about the nature of god. — Txastopher
OP claims that god is wrong — Txastopher
This is a claim about the nature of god — Txastopher
Anyway, I can search for statistics in some cherry picking manner to support my point of people being paranoid and fearful of the government in the US. — Posty McPostface
The problem is that you can't take an atheist position and make claims about the nature of the deity. — Txastopher
Ah, so now you're claiming that whatever god had to say, it may or may not be correct. So this god that you claim not to believe in has, nevertheless, certain qualities that you are sure about. What a mess! — Txastopher
Obviously, you exclude yourself from this group since, as you state above, you wouldn't necessarily follow his commands — Txastopher
My claim is, "I do not believe a God exists." AKA "I am not convinced that God exists." - If I told you I owned an invisible pet dragon, and you said you don't believe me, does the burden of proof suddenly rest with you? No. — chatterbears
One phenomenon that strikes me as strange, and which is not even a recent thing is the amount of paranoia and fear towards our own government. — Posty McPostface
I'm saying that there is an eliminated outcome – heads + heads – and yet the probability is still 0.75. — Michael
Where has Tuesday come from? It wasn't mentioned at all in the experiment I described here. — Michael
Then you might as well say that we've eliminated the trivial scenario of heads + heads in this experiment. — Michael
Heads + heads utterly irrelevant and doesn't change the probability at all. — Michael
There's nothing to eliminate. This is it. — Michael
We flip a coin. If it's heads then we wake Mary once. If it's tails then we wake her twice.
What is the probability that it's her first awakening? 2/3, because two of the three outcomes are first awakenings? Or 3/4 because the probability is 0.5 + (0.5 * 0.5)? — Michael
and can ignore your "there's no 'eliminated" outcome" objection — Michael
We flip a coin. If it's heads then the result stands. If it's tails then we flip again and the new result stands.
What is the probability that it's heads? 2/3, because two of the three outcomes are heads? Or 3/4 because the probability is 0.5 + (0.5 * 0.5)? — Michael
I toss a coin and ask you what I got, but if it's heads I toss it again and if it's tails that round isn't played. What are you guessing when I ask you what I got? — BlueBanana
That's irrelevant and doesn't have anything to do with the probability. We can change the scenario slightly to:
If it's heads then we wake her once. If it's tails then we wake her twice.
What's her credence that it's heads? — Michael
there are two guesses for each flip of a tails
— Michael
Because of which each guess is more likely to have been caused by tails. — BlueBanana
We flip a coin. If it's heads then the result stands. If it's tails then we flip again and the new result stands.
What is the probability that it's heads? 2/3, because two of the three outcomes are heads? Or 3/4 because the probability is 0.5 + (0.5 * 0.5)?
This seems to be the crux of the disagreement. — Michael
The above reasoning only works if --- — Michael