Comments on: To Die For http://www.roughtheory.org/content/to-die-for/ theory in the rough Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:54:32 +1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: E http://www.roughtheory.org/content/to-die-for/comment-page-1/#comment-16062 E Fri, 18 May 2007 04:40:25 +0000 http://www.roughtheory.org/content/to-die-for/#comment-16062 LOL Well if you read it on the interweb it must be true! Why on earth I am concerned about probability of that die being statistically accurate...? I am being such a positivist in my last comment! Accurate of what exactly again? :-P LOL
Well if you read it on the interweb it must be true!

Why on earth I am concerned about probability of that die being statistically accurate…? I am being such a positivist in my last comment!
Accurate of what exactly again?

:-P

]]> By: N Pepperell http://www.roughtheory.org/content/to-die-for/comment-page-1/#comment-15934 N Pepperell Wed, 16 May 2007 13:32:58 +0000 http://www.roughtheory.org/content/to-die-for/#comment-15934 The person claims that the die is "Statistically accurate!" And who am I to mistrust information from the internet? The person claims that the die is “Statistically accurate!” And who am I to mistrust information from the internet?

]]> By: E http://www.roughtheory.org/content/to-die-for/comment-page-1/#comment-15932 E Wed, 16 May 2007 12:58:52 +0000 http://www.roughtheory.org/content/to-die-for/#comment-15932 I have strange dice leftover from my uber nerd days, but I never had a five sided dice! Waitasecond. I think I am still a uber nerd, so I take that back. :P And being an uber nerd I would just take a 10 sided dice and count 1&2 as 1; 3&4 as 2; 5&6 as 3; 7&8 as 4; and 9&10 as 5. I also think that dice looks like it has greater or less chance of some numbers coming up due to its shape, I am suspicious about how random it may actually be. I have strange dice leftover from my uber nerd days, but I never had a five sided dice! Waitasecond. I think I am still a uber nerd, so I take that back. :P And being an uber nerd I would just take a 10 sided dice and count 1&2 as 1; 3&4 as 2; 5&6 as 3; 7&8 as 4; and 9&10 as 5. I also think that dice looks like it has greater or less chance of some numbers coming up due to its shape, I am suspicious about how random it may actually be.

]]> By: lmagee http://www.roughtheory.org/content/to-die-for/comment-page-1/#comment-15865 lmagee Mon, 14 May 2007 12:25:11 +0000 http://www.roughtheory.org/content/to-die-for/#comment-15865 "I’m certain LM found my presence supportive and ever-helpful. LM never tells me such things, of course, but I’m sure that’s due to some personal reticence about expressing deep emotion." Such surety amid a discussion of probability! There's a chance that there are other options... I hazard a guess that there are at least four other equi-probable outcomes to this dilemma: 1. No "deep emotion" was experienced. 2. "Deep emotion" was experienced, but it was merely correlated with, rather than caused by, the afore-mentioned presence. 3. The "deep emotion", such as it was, was negatively rather than positively correlated with the phenomenon in question. 4. Such "presences", "tellings" and "expressings" are observations made by observing observers, who make distinctions in the autopoetic system of communication, constituted by selections of information, utterances and understanding, which remains systemicly closed to the 6 billion psychological systems who in turn are inscrutable and uninterpretable as part of the environmental conditions of the communicative system, thus rendering incoherent ascriptions of communicative acts ("expressing[s]") to psychological states ("deep emotion") - since, clearly, the observer can only know what (s)he knows, see what (s)he sees, and cannot see that (s)he cannot know that (s)he cannot see what (s)he cannot know. QED. At least under a Bayesian approach, the last option actually must assume a much greater so-kalled (sic) 'prior probability'. “I’m certain LM found my presence supportive and ever-helpful. LM never tells me such things, of course, but I’m sure that’s due to some personal reticence about expressing deep emotion.”

Such surety amid a discussion of probability! There’s a chance that there are other options… I hazard a guess that there are at least four other equi-probable outcomes to this dilemma:

1. No “deep emotion” was experienced.
2. “Deep emotion” was experienced, but it was merely correlated with, rather than caused by, the afore-mentioned presence.
3. The “deep emotion”, such as it was, was negatively rather than positively correlated with the phenomenon in question.
4. Such “presences”, “tellings” and “expressings” are observations made by observing observers, who make distinctions in the autopoetic system of communication, constituted by selections of information, utterances and understanding, which remains systemicly closed to the 6 billion psychological systems who in turn are inscrutable and uninterpretable as part of the environmental conditions of the communicative system, thus rendering incoherent ascriptions of communicative acts (“expressing[s]“) to psychological states (“deep emotion”) – since, clearly, the observer can only know what (s)he knows, see what (s)he sees, and cannot see that (s)he cannot know that (s)he cannot see what (s)he cannot know. QED.

At least under a Bayesian approach, the last option actually must assume a much greater so-kalled (sic) ‘prior probability’.

]]>