• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2711 months ago

    That last part is what the Bayesian scientist is wagering on, it’s not missing, as op suggested

    • Neato
      link
      fedilink
      211 months ago

      Ah, gotcha. I tried learning Bayesian probability once and failed utterly. One of the only classes I just barely passed (stat was the other). My brain just barely computes it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1311 months ago

        The intuition is exactly your argument:

        When the machine says yes it’s either because

        (1) the sun went nova (vanishingly small chance) and machine rolled truth (prob 35/36) – the joint probability of this (the product) is near zero

        OR

        (2) sun didn’t go nova (prob of basically one) and machine rolled lie (prob 1/36) – joint prob near 1/36

        Think of joint probability as the total likelihood. It is much more likely we are in scenario 2 because the total likelihood of that event (just under 1/36) is astronomically higher than the alternative (near zero)

        I’m skipping stuff but hopefully my words make clear what they math doesn’t always

        • @steveman_ha
          link
          English
          211 months ago

          That’s a solid intro! Nice.