You and @eric3579 might be interested in this: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/n9tef/hi_im_louis_ck_and_this_is_a_thing/
Among many other things that he said, he says that the 5$ experiment has worked "well" although it's 'far from over,' and who knows whether he'll do it again. Not exact numbers, but it hints that it's worked out pretty well for him.

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
I've looked, unsuccessfully, online to see how his sales are going--nothing.
Since it's his own deal we may never find out. But, if you hear anything please let me know.
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Thanks again my friend!

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
*promote
I'm really curious how the online sales of his show are doing.
I bet this is the new model of comedy shows.

I've looked, unsuccessfully, online to see how his sales are going--nothing.
Since it's his own deal we may never find out. But, if you hear anything please let me know.
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Thanks again my friend!

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
*promote
I'm really curious how the online sales of his show are doing.
I bet this is the new model of comedy shows.

How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.

I agree; this is saying "I don't know", which I think is a legitimate answer, and the only intellectually honest one barring actual knowledge. This was my point that the atheist position is "no" to the proposition "does God exist?", which requires a justification.

As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.

This was my position as an agnostic, so I understand what you mean. It was very difficult to even define what truth could be in that mode of thinking. When I understood that truth was a tangible concept that could be grasped, it blew me away. I will say that you have a good way of knowing whether God exists. If you prayed to Jesus and asked Him what the truth is, He would show it to you.

When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.

The tension is between the objective and the subjective viewpoint. To define a universal concept such as truth, you would need an objective viewpoint. God is the only being which could have such a viewpoint, so therefore, unless God tells us, we have no way of knowing. Finite human beings are locked into their subjective bias. We cannot get outside of the Universe to look in and see what is really going on.

I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".

There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.

That you're interested in the truth, and you are open to what it could be, is a very good thing. When I was agnostic, I felt much the same way. When I found out God is real, I wasn't even specifically looking for Him. I was searching for that truth and it ended up finding me. God rewards that open mindedness, that curiosity and drive to know what is real. What I suggested above is the shortcut; just ask Him and He will show you.

By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all

I agree, and I will submit to you that all other truths are relevant to this question, and in fact, their ultimate reality could only be determined by the answer to that question. The funny thing about it is, the answer to it could only ever be yes. If it is no, you will never hear about it. The only thing you will ever hear is yes.

Your work sounds highly interesting. Could you direct me to any resources which would describe it in more detail?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Hey @hpqp, I'd like to thank you for your reply and let you know I plan to have a furthering of that discussion when I get off work (on lunch break), but I had to address @shinyblurry rock argument.
How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.
As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.
When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.
I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.
By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">
Ok, rant over! Back to work, slave!

Hey @hpqp, I'd like to thank you for your reply and let you know I plan to have a furthering of that discussion when I get off work (on lunch break), but I had to address @shinyblurry rock argument.

How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.

As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.

When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.

I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.

By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all

Ok, rant over! Back to work, slave!

Oh yea, that makes sense..(not), You can call a channel while using the sarcasm button. I was sure I had done that before and was unsuccessful in calling it, which is good because it was a joke.

*nochannel
*science

>> ^JiggaJonson:

dupe of something, trying to find but unsuccessful so far


Yeah, the title is totally unrelated to kissing... but I've seen it before...

dupe of something, trying to find but unsuccessful so far

>> ^offsetSammy:

You are correct that each bomb diffusion is an independent event and always has the same probability of success, but it is also correct to say that the chances of successfully diffusing 4 bombs IN A ROW is 40%, 10 bombs IN A ROW is 10%, etc. In this case each event is dependent, but you have to work out the probabilities at the start, before any bombs are diffused.
It's kind of like flipping a coin (which has a 50% chance of landing heads or tails every time). Every time I flip it, I have a 50% chance of landing on heads, but my chances of getting say 5 heads in a row is only 3%. (0.5^5) Imagine that flipping tails results in death. Now you can start to see the peril these guys were in!
So if the 80% bomb diffusion success rate was correct, it would be valid to say, BEFORE the person does it, that if they are tasked with diffusing 10 bombs, their chances of survival are only 10%. Note that, every time they successfully diffuse a bomb, their overall odds of survival improve a little bit (because now they only have to diffuse 9 in a row, 8 in a row, etc).
p.s. I think you'll find that the chance of the sun rising every day is quite a bit higher than 99%.
>> ^Friesian:
My maths is pretty rusty, but I'm not sure you can do the probabilities in that manner because they're unrelated events: your success in defusing one bomb has no bearing (statistically at least) on your ability to defuse the next one. Otherwise you could say things like:
Let's imagine there's a 99% chance that the sun will rise tomorrow. Assuming the sun rises each and every day for the next two months, the "probability" it would rise on the 61st day as well is near 50/50. Take this even further, and count back to when the sun first came into existence, and it's essentially impossible that the sun would still rise tomorrow.
Don't get me wrong, bomb defusing is one hell of a risky job—hell, average life expectancy was only 10 weeks according to the video—but I don't think your probabilities hold up.>> ^offsetSammy:
Scary stuff. If you do the math, let's say you had an 80% chance of successfully diffusing any given bomb. If your career consisted of diffusing only 4 bombs, and assuming an unsuccessful diffusion results in death, your chances of survival are only 40%. 6 bombs, 26%. 10 bombs, 10%. Yikes.
Note: I have no idea how accurate the 80% figure is. It would be interesting to hear the real statistic.



Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines, but there's something about it which makes me sit back and question it.


Interestingly, 3% seems really really low for getting 5 heads in a row (oh, I know it's correct, but it just appears low). There are 2 to the power 5 different combinations of heads/tails from 5 coin flips (32). As you've got to have at least one combination, 100%/32 (as they're all just as likely) = 3.125%, which is the same as 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2. I know I'm just reiterating what you said, but this helps me get it through my skull and into my brain.

Perhaps I'm overthinking this, or maybe ever since I heard about the Monty Hall problem I've never trusted myself to be able to accurately figure out probabilities.

You are correct that each bomb diffusion is an independent event and always has the same probability of success, but it is also correct to say that the chances of successfully diffusing 4 bombs IN A ROW is 40%, 10 bombs IN A ROW is 10%, etc. In this case each event is dependent, but you have to work out the probabilities at the start, before any bombs are diffused.

It's kind of like flipping a coin (which has a 50% chance of landing heads or tails every time). Every time I flip it, I have a 50% chance of landing on heads, but my chances of getting say 5 heads in a row is only 3%. (0.5^5) Imagine that flipping tails results in death. Now you can start to see the peril these guys were in!

So if the 80% bomb diffusion success rate was correct, it would be valid to say, BEFORE the person does it, that if they are tasked with diffusing 10 bombs, their chances of survival are only 10%. Note that, every time they successfully diffuse a bomb, their overall odds of survival improve a little bit (because now they only have to diffuse 9 in a row, 8 in a row, etc).

p.s. I think you'll find that the chance of the sun rising every day is quite a bit higher than 99%.

>> ^Friesian:

My maths is pretty rusty, but I'm not sure you can do the probabilities in that manner because they're unrelated events: your success in defusing one bomb has no bearing (statistically at least) on your ability to defuse the next one. Otherwise you could say things like:
Let's imagine there's a 99% chance that the sun will rise tomorrow. Assuming the sun rises each and every day for the next two months, the "probability" it would rise on the 61st day as well is near 50/50. Take this even further, and count back to when the sun first came into existence, and it's essentially impossible that the sun would still rise tomorrow.
Don't get me wrong, bomb defusing is one hell of a risky job—hell, average life expectancy was only 10 weeks according to the video—but I don't think your probabilities hold up.>> ^offsetSammy:
Scary stuff. If you do the math, let's say you had an 80% chance of successfully diffusing any given bomb. If your career consisted of diffusing only 4 bombs, and assuming an unsuccessful diffusion results in death, your chances of survival are only 40%. 6 bombs, 26%. 10 bombs, 10%. Yikes.
Note: I have no idea how accurate the 80% figure is. It would be interesting to hear the real statistic.

My maths is pretty rusty, but I'm not sure you can do the probabilities in that manner because they're unrelated events: your success in defusing one bomb has no bearing (statistically at least) on your ability to defuse the next one. Otherwise you could say things like:

Let's imagine there's a 99% chance that the sun will rise tomorrow. Assuming the sun rises each and every day for the next two months, the "probability" it would rise on the 61st day as well is near 50/50. Take this even further, and count back to when the sun first came into existence, and it's essentially impossible that the sun would still rise tomorrow.

Don't get me wrong, bomb defusing is one hell of a risky job—hell, average life expectancy was only 10 weeks according to the video—but I don't think your probabilities hold up.>> ^offsetSammy:

Scary stuff. If you do the math, let's say you had an 80% chance of successfully diffusing any given bomb. If your career consisted of diffusing only 4 bombs, and assuming an unsuccessful diffusion results in death, your chances of survival are only 40%. 6 bombs, 26%. 10 bombs, 10%. Yikes.
Note: I have no idea how accurate the 80% figure is. It would be interesting to hear the real statistic.

Scary stuff. If you do the math, let's say you had an 80% chance of successfully diffusing any given bomb. If your career consisted of diffusing only 4 bombs, and assuming an unsuccessful diffusion results in death, your chances of survival are only 40%. 6 bombs, 26%. 10 bombs, 10%. Yikes.

Note: I have no idea how accurate the 80% figure is. It would be interesting to hear the real statistic.

I know you are kidding, rs, but to be completely clear, this isn't intentionally aimed at anyone on this site. I recently tried to (unsuccessfully) mediate a conflict between two old friends which resulted in some research the drew me to this video. I thought it was interesting and decided to post it.

If you are looking to get some badge points, I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to locate a replacement embed for this video: http://videosift.com/video/Killing-Us-Softly-Volume-4 It was the full version of the video. I can only find trailers or commercials for it now.

With all due respect, isn't this more of an example of the aging process rather than evolution? If it were evolution the line would get straighter and straighter over time with the unfit ones weeded out (or the line would come closer to some other arbitrary goal).

But in this case, errors add up and multiply over time, which is what happens as an animal ages right? The total sum of errors eventually causing the organism to stop working at all.

An interesting experiment, but not related to evolution really. At least not biological evolution.

>> ^therealblankman:

Not a very good metaphor for Darwinian evolution at all, this merely illustrates mutation without the natural selection and differential survival part. Many of these mutations would have been unsuccessful, and would have most certainly died out.


>> ^westy:

LOL thias has pritty much nothing to do with evolution more to do with "noise" and data corruptions for this to be an analgy to evolutoin u would have to enfirce an environmental factor that cussed the "noise" to progate in varouse directions due to selective benefit.


>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^BoneRemake:
This makes absolutely no sense to me.

The people tracing the line only see the last line before theirs. Bcause noone can trace the previous line exactly like the one before, little differences occur.
In nature, no two people of different mothers are alike, because every time the genes involved change in miniscule ways = variation.

Thanks, makes sense now that I know they did not see the lines previous just the one previous. I was trying to grasp how it all of a sudden looked like an upside down question mark, it seemed ridiculous.

Not a very good metaphor for Darwinian evolution at all, this merely illustrates mutation without the natural selection and differential survival part. Many of these mutations would have been unsuccessful, and would have most certainly died out.