The Improbability Principle by Dr. David J. Hand

[Guest]

I am still reading The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day. It is a very good book that trains your brain. The laws of probability destroy apologetic "evidences" like Nahom. We can use the Improbability Principle to challenge patriarchal blessings, revelations, spiritual promptings, scriptures, prophecies, and miracle claims.

I don't think anyone with an open mind can believe in a personal god without any doubt after reading the Improbability Principle and The illusion of God's Presence

Here are some useful quotes

An infinite number of events happen all around us all the time — life is just a series of events — so for a coincidence, something has to single out these particular events and link them in a meaningful way

― David J. Hand, The Improbability Principle

We need to consider how many dreams, altogether, are dreamed by everyone in the world every night. What would be really extraordinary is if none of these happened to coincide with a matching event happening the next day

― David J. Hand, The Improbability Principle

even professional statisticians can be fooled—until they sit down and go through the calculations

― David J. Hand, The Improbability Principle

Prophecies are often couched in cryptic terms, making them ambiguous and permitting multiple interpretations of their meaning. This can make them difficult to refute

― David J. Hand, The Improbability Principle

The impact of the law of truly large numbers is also illustrated by the phenomenon of psychic animals. These are animals that appear to be able to predict the future, or tell when some event has occurred

― David J. Hand, The Improbability Principle

Although they look remarkable and entirely unpredictable, in fact these events are to be expected. No mysteries are required to explain them—no superstitions, no miracles, no gods, no supernatural interventions or psychic powers, no synchronicity, seriality, morphic resonance, or any of the host of other imaginary imps. All that’s needed are the basic laws of probability

― David J. Hand, The Improbability Principle

[_bcuzbcuz]

I agree. It´s an excellent read, and when I checked back to my copy I had highlighted a large number of quotes.

“When any one tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle.” Hume.

Excerpt From: "The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day" by David J. Hand. Scribd.

[_cinepro]

What are the odds?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39297&p=915998

[_Tator]

What are the odds?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39297&p=915998

Well that was 35 minutes I won't get back but I loved every minute of revisiting that "old" thread.

Thanx cinepro

[_cwald]

What are the odds?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39297&p=915998

Well that was 35 minutes I won't get back but I loved every minute of revisiting that "old" thread.

Thanx cinepro

I don't miss Tobin.

[_DoubtingThomas]

What are the odds?

It is not a coincidence, gods inspired you to mention that book

[_I have a question]

I don't miss Tobin.

Don't say that name 3 times...

[_Physics Guy]

I remember reading that thread as a lurker, and although my impression of Tobin from elsewhere was that he could be pretty annoying, in that thread he had a good point. Such was his reputation at that point, that even though this time he had a good point, everyone pooh-poohed it. That's what happens, I guess, when you troll too much.

It's too bad, because the point Tobin was trying to raise there was interesting, and relevant to this thread as well, I think. Whether one would be smart to switch doors depends not only on what one has seen, but also on what one believes about how the game host would have acted in other circumstances. I think this says something about how one should draw conclusions from seeing rare events. Exactly what it says, I'm not sure; but it seems worth pondering.

[_Physics Guy]

The point I understood Tobin to be making is clearer if you suppose that sixty separate players play the game sixty times. So twenty of these players pick the right door the first time; the other forty initially choose wrong. Then the host opens one or other of the other two doors, and offers the player the chance to switch to one of those doors. What should the player do?

Under the "proper" Monty Hall Problem rules, the host always opens an empty door. So twenty times out of sixty, the host opens an empty door, and the third door is also empty; while forty times out of sixty, the host opens an empty door, and the third door hides the prize. So switching to the third door wins 40 times out of 60.

But if instead the host's door-opening policy is simply to open one of the two un-chosen doors at random, then twenty times out of sixty the player chose right the first time, and the host shows an open door; twenty times out of sixty, the host shows an empty door, and the third door has the prize; and twenty times out of sixty, the host opens the door with the prize behind it, revealing it. Those last twenty players are lucky, and can switch to the prize with certainty. Of the other forty players, who see an empty door opened, half chose right the first time, and half chose wrong. So if you see an empty door opened, and the host is playing by these random rules, then there is no gain for you from switching.

Or what if the host is a nice guy who will always reveal the prize unless it is behind the door the player first chose? If you know this, then you can always win, because if you see the prize revealed (happens forty times out of sixty), you can switch to it, and if you see an empty door opened, you know that the prize is behind your chosen door, and you can stick with it. But under these nice-guy rules, if you switch in any of the twenty cases where you see an empty door opened, you will always lose.

So, just as Tobin said, whether or not you should switch when you see an empty door opened depends on how willing the host would have been to reveal the prize, if your first choice was wrong. In the case where you see the empty door, you know that in fact the host did not reveal the prize; but to decide whether to switch now, you need to have a theory about why the host didn't reveal the prize. Was it because the host is jerk who knew where the prize was and was never going to show you it? Then you should switch. Or is the host such a nice guy that the only reason he could have had for not showing you the prize was that it was behind the door you'd already picked? Then you should not switch.

To me at least, the fact that you need a theory about counterfactual situations, in order to decide what to do after seeing an empty door, is about as surprising as the original fact that in the classic Monty Hall Problem, you should always switch. And it may even say something about how Mormons and non-Mormons think about Joseph Smith.

The Book of Mormon problem is kind of like a hundred-door version of the MHP, where Mormons grow up with the first choice being the door "Book of Mormon is true". Then Joseph Smith's history opens ninety-eight other doors, showing possible means of faking the Book of Mormon that can't be proven as airtight cases because they involve some unlikely-seeming element, somewhere. The hundredth door is "faked in some way too tricky to prove".

I'm inclined to think of Joseph Smith as a never-show-the-prize kind of guy, so to me all those not-quite-airtight theories for how the Book of Mormon got made only make me sure that the last door is 99% sure to be right. Mormons figure that Smith was at least honest enough that he wouldn't have passed up 98 chances to come clean, so the first door must be the right one, even though this would have been quite a fluke.

[_Philo Sofee]

I agree. It´s an excellent read, and when I checked back to my copy I had highlighted a large number of quotes.

“When any one tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle.” Hume.

Excerpt From: "The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day" by David J. Hand. Scribd.

I simply have to get this book and catch up!