A ditched girl getting Bayesian'ed'

I am getting late for my work. But while getting ready, my stream of consciousness suddenly questioned me on probability and so I thought better to write it out before I get myself involved in the filth of humanity.

It so happened, that I being a regular reader of blogs, specially Tomichan's, happened to comment on one of his posts where he claimed that the chance of a two time ditched women not getting ditched for the third time is nil not because of bayesian probability but because of her own past experiences.

I think a lot. And I hate it when those thoughts after sometime become foggy, confusing and incoherent. And so I tend to run away from most of the thoughts prefering, for most of the time, being ignorant.

Yes, I get myself in the state of ignorance, for my limited thinking capacity cannot comprehend the enormity of truth. It just cannot. Perhaps with age I will be able to, but I am not sure of that either.

So, yes.. about state of ignorance. Upon some thinking, I am claiming that probability loves the state of ignorance. I might be wrong here, for how can I know the truth.

Have you ever tossed an unbiased coin? We toss them with our thumb finger and it lands right on the ground or reference line. There are two possibilities, that we already know of. Either it is going to turn Head or Tail.

Now how convenient it is to say that the probability of getting a Head or a tail is 50 percent.  I guess probability is for the convenience of mankind.

But how convenient it is for the probability to ignore the fact that I could have, with precise mathematics using laws of physics considering our earth as a Newtonian frame of reference, tossed a coin with a certain force and with a certain direction to make it face a Head.

Will then the probability of getting a Head be just 50 percent?

Now think about this, everytime we toss a coin, we do give thrust to the coin and we do unknowingly, give it a direction. Of course the reason why the coin landed as Head is because of those parameters along with several others like acceleration due to gravity, angle of attack, wind speed etc.

But since prior to using probability we do not know the details of those parameters, we just assume randomeness instead of precise calculations. We assume that getting a Head or a Tail is random and whatever that is causing it to turn Head or Tail is unknown and that unknown is best represented as a mere chance or a mere likelihood.

I was wrong then to consider a human behaviour in terms of probability. To predict a human behaviour I would need a rigorous mathematical modelling based on past history as a source for statistics and all the feeds of thoughts as a basis for Artificial Neural Networking. I am sure I won't get any. However it would be a great theme for a sci fi novel.

Perhaps understanding those human behaviours should as well be considered as a state of indifference to me.


Popular Posts