Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 16:42:45 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no>, tlambert@primenet.com, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) Message-ID: <19971112164245.26982@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199711120225.TAA01027@rocky.mt.sri.com>; from Nate Williams on Tue, Nov 11, 1997 at 07:25:24PM -0700 References: <199711110620.XAA15169@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711110645.XAA02334@usr03.primenet.com> <199711111652.JAA16566@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711111836.TAA22576@bitbox.follo.net> <199711111935.MAA17390@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711112339.AAA23291@bitbox.follo.net> <199711120011.RAA19556@rocky.mt.sri.com> <19971112021408.64619@bitbox.follo.net> <199711120225.TAA01027@rocky.mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Eivind Eklund]
> > NO predictability? I see a definite statistic predictability; e.g, I
> > can predict the likelihood that you're going to answer more messages
> > based on the number of messages you've answered before.
[Nate Williams]
> Not necessarily so, since I may give up in frustration and all of you to
> my mail forwarder so I'm not bothered by it. Seriously, humans
> are fickle beings.
Science don't give exact predicitons. Science give statistical
likelyhood of something occurring. If you want exact results, you're
in the business of maths, not science :-)
My claim is that some aspects of human behaviour (possibly all) are
statistically predictable. I don't think an attempt at denying this
will get you anywhere.
> > It isn't an exact prediction, but I can predict that SOMEBODY is going
> > to answer post a message to the freebsd-hackers list in the next week
> > with (so far) 100% reliability. That's human behavior, too :-)
>
> Actually, depending on the question, it may go totally unanswered if the
> person/people capable of answering doesn't care, is too busy, or are
> annoyed. You can't depend on human behavior.
I'm not talking about any single message - I'm talking about the
likelyhood that there is going to come _A_ message to the -hackers
list. Any message. So far, the prediction that one will come in the
next week has always turned out true :-)
> > I can predict that you're either going to eat food within the next six
> > months unless you die. That's a prediction on your personal behavior.
>
> Now you're being silly. I don't consider 'eating' a behavior, since
> it's a requirment.
A requirement for what? Continued survival? The attempt to survive
is a common behaviour, and fairly predictable, too. But why wouldn't
it be a behaviour?
And no, I'm not being silly, if your claim is that no part of human
behaviour is predictable. Another prediction: More than 70% chance of
you using a computer in the next 6 months. Isn't that a behaviour,
either?
Unless you defined behaviour to be only that which is not predictable,
you're not going to get anywhere. And if you choose to use that
definition you will find that humans have very little behaviour :-)
(Besides that, it is a circle definition).
> Bet you can't predict what I'm going to eat in the next 6 months
> based on my previous diet.
Not in exact detail, no, but I'd say I was fairly likely to be able to
predict some of it (ie, even without knowing your diet, just the
culture you live in, I'd say it is an over 20% chance that you're
going to eat something containing corn in the next six months).
> > I don't believe in telepathy as-of-yet. I just find it an easier pill
> > to swallow than something that must by definition _also_ include an
> > unknown mode of communication, which is what telepathy would be. Call
> > it the 'smaller hypothesis'.
>
> Why is it smaller?
Telepathy: Unknown mode of communication between human beings.
God: Unknown mode of communication between human beings, AND
omni-powered, omni-present sentinent being.
Having a christian God that respond to prayer would involve having
some form of communication to Him, and that communcation is as far as
I've understood not limited to the presently known forms of
communication. It also involve some form of intervention with the
patients; that is another form of communication. The minimal size of
this involve an extra form of communication AND a God, while telepathy
involve only an extra form of communication.
> > And I can't see how telepathy would need to be completely
> > un-quantifiable? I can see scores of ways to quantify it, and
> > probably measure it if it do exist. The fact that it hasn't been
> > shown in a repeatable experiment yet seems to show that it (if it
> > indeed exists) is fairly elusive, though.
>
> In the same manner as the existance of God, yes. :)
Sure.
Just to repeat: I _do not_ consider religious people silly. Not as a
group, anyway. I consider them to have a self-reinforcing belief in
something that ultimately is unprovable and not isn't subject to
rational reasoning. Something that in the end comes down to pure
faith; something that doesn't have strong enough indications of being
true that I'll accept it as true, but that _can't_ be shown to be
false.
Eivind, wondering if he is communicating clearly here.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971112164245.26982>