An Element of My Overarching As-Of-Yet-Nameless and Unproven Theory About Life
Numbers are qualitative descriptions, not quantitative ones. Furthermore, all numbers are quantitatively equivalent even though they are qualitatively different.
In the anthroposophical terms I labour to popularize, wherein I argue that everything can be translated into and by the following equation: mA × cA2 = EA we would say that numbers are all “SpacialMasses” (mA) and, as such, can all be represented by their equivalent symbol phi (øA), which I will detail more in a future post.
As such, while it is true that 1 = 1, it is also true that 1 = 2, 1 = 3, 1 = 99 or even 1 = 1,345,780 other number and vice-versa. Comparing numbers is like comparing apples and oranges. Regardless of how you slice them, you still have fruit or, in this case, data. So if someone tells me a number is “2” shaped or “1” shaped or “1,966” shaped, they’ve done nothing but inform me of the appearance/shape of the space occupied by this number. When someone tells me that I have 0% odds of success, this information tells me pretty much NOTHING useful; they might as well have told me that I have “bacon” or “necktie” chances of success because it would be just as meaningless but much less frustrating to hear.
The Logic Behind This Idea
0 = 0. True. But not accurate.
What is “0”? Zero is everything that is greater than minus one and lesser than one. Key word here: EVERYTHING.
If we wanted to write numbers is a way that was actually accurate as well as being true, instead of writing this costs “$0”, we’d write this costs -1 < $0 < 1. This could easily get mighty confusing, which is why we just write “$0” but the thing that everyone forgets is that zero is a RANGE, not a point.
Zero includes things like 0,0001 and 0,00003 and 0,3334290189213802190301293122.
The multiples of zero are infinite. If you have “0%” chances of success, you don’t have 0.0000000 ad infinitum percent chances. You have 0.0000 ad infinitum percent chances PLUS every single other point contained in the infinity of numbers contained between -1 and 1.
Hell, even if someone says you have 0.1% chances of success, you STILL have an infinity of chances because that is how much is contained in the space between 0.0 (also a range) < 0.1 < 0.2 (also a range).
So, regardless of what number you’re given, you still have the SAME odds of success: infinity. And, as explains the infinite monkey theorem, anything that has an INFINITE chance of happening will “almost surely” happen. In other words, the odds are always in your favour (and mine!) and having 0% chances of succeeding means that if you try long enough, you are just as “almost surely” likely to succeed as you’d be if you had 100% chances of success.
Long story short, this is the reason why the people of the Navajo culture were found to have trouble understanding Western geometry. They somehow managed to retain their instinctive understanding of the fact that each and every number describes multiple potential spaces. They were also smart enough to realize that numbers don’t give a description that includes all of the other super-duper useful information that would allow someone to accurately pinpoint where the points of a triangle will be at any given time, thus making them practically useless geometric tools.
In other words, you need the SAME information to be able to track your dinner or a person you’ve never met at an airport as you do to track a number in a triangle, or in any other shape. To track an object, you should know data concerning the object’s :
- (mA) Space: the configuration of the tracked object (what does the object or person look like?)
- If you were looking for a person, this would amount to knowing if they’ll be in the airport’s café or by the souvenir shop (range) and also having a picture of their face or, at the very least, a description of what they’re wearing so you’ll recognize them (point).
- (cA2 ) Time: how long object is liable to spend in a certain space before it leaves that place and, more importantly, which direction it will take when it leaves (how many numbers in the -0.1 < 0.0 < 0.1 range will 0.0 go through before deciding to stop becoming points in that specific range of infinite configurations and, when it decides to change ranges, which range will it chose to become?)
- If you were looking for a person, this would amount to knowing how late you can afford to be before they stop waiting for you (15 minutes? An hour?) and, once they decide to go home, will they leave by the East or West doors? Will they turn right or left at the intersection? And from there, where will they go to get where they’re going, which – of course – supposes that you know where they’re going.
- (EA) Energy: the speed and frequency with which the number will be moving once it leaves (is 0.000 ad infinitum going in 0.1 or 0.2’s direction and once it gets there, how long will it take before it moves again?)
- If you were looking for a person, this would amount to knowing if they’re going home by foot, by bus, by metro or by car.
Knowing all of this information, you can use an equation so simple you can intuitively calculate it to essentially predict the future. This equation is mA x cA2 = EA and is the revised version of Einstein’s famous theory of relativity without the two mistakes I deemed made it inaccurate, which I shall explain in greater detail in another post. Eventually.
Using this equation, you can convert the data you obtain into a special kind of energy that allows you to not only know what the object looks like now but to also know what it will look like at a given point in the future, where it will go, when it will start moving, how quickly it will move, how quickly it will get to where it’s going and how long it’s liable to stay where it lands once it gets there. Which is GREAT because it means that you can waylay the object while it is in motion and eat it or talk to it or measure it or whatever it is you were planning on doing with it.
Now, I know that was kind of complicated. I aim to review this post sooner or later and simplify my conclusions. For now, here is a summary of my theory about probability and why it is worthless for anyone who lives in reality.
Summary of the Logic Behind my Perception of Probability
Probability is stupid.
Probability is stupid because its “logic” is actually illusion and depends on what will happen in a pretend reality that has nothing to do with life. In life, as we all know, ceteris NON paribus. Conditions do not all remain the same. EVER. Someone or something somewhere is always messing your stuff up.
Probability is stupid because it assumes that life stays still, that an unchanging “controllable” environment exists and that this unchanging environment has rules. It’s true! Unchanging environments do exist but Earth isn’t one of them. At all. We (and by “we”, I mean “I”) call unchanging environments “timeless spaces”, also known as “unmovable objects”. Unmovable objects are NOT naturally occurring phenomenons on this planet. Any earthling who wishes to create a Natural science must create a science that obeys, heeds and submits to the laws of Nature, which is what I’m trying to do for most of the day, every day.
Of my many theories all about the same vast topic, this particular one (about probability) can be summarized by a simple formula.
0 = -1 < 0 < 1
Zero is equivalent to the range of INFINITY that exists between -1 and 1. Just like every other number.
You know how parents sometimes tell their kids that “no two snowflakes are the exact same” then tell their child that they’re “unique” and “special little snowflakes”? And other people who don’t have kids chime in “just like every other snowflake” and get death-glared out of the park? Well I’m that jerk telling you that every number is indeed “unique”. Just like every other number and if everything is unique, everything is the same.
- All things are unique.
- Things that resemble other things are similar or, colloquially, “the same”.
- Unique things – like numbers! – resemble all the other unique things that all share with it the common trait of uniqueness.
QED. Unique things – like numbers! – are all the same.
Still not convinced? Let me try to be clearer.
Why I Think Probability is BS
Probability says that if you toss a normal unloaded totally legit coin in the air 100 times, you have 100% chances of getting heads OR tails 100% of the time. Either way, you will obtain 100 results and none of those will be a cookie.
LIFE says “Ha! That’s what you think. Let’s test it and see who’s right. Me or your odds.”
So you grab a coin and toss it in the air. 99 times. You start feeling pretty smug about your “inevitable” success because in one more toss, you’ll have “proven” that if you toss a coin in the air 100 times, you have 100% chances of getting either heads or tails. So you toss the coin into the air a 100th time… And a gust of wind comes by and blows your coin away. You curse and run after it and when you crouch to pick it up, you realize that there are now two identical coins on the ground, one of which says tails, another heads. Visibly, someone dropped a coin right next to where yours landed (or the coin cloned itself while you weren’t looking, whichever) and now you don’t know which coin is which.
Do you see what just happened there? You had 100% chances of getting either heads or tails after 100 tosses but, no matter what, your odds were that you’d get 100 mixed results. Yet, you tossed 100 times and got 101 results.
Usually, when met with such results, people will say the following “That doesn’t count! I demand a retoss; that was just bad luck! In a laboratory setting, this wouldn’t have happened! Besides, at least I proved that if I toss a coin 100 times, none of my results will magically be a cookie.”
- “That doesn’t count!”
Yes, it damn well does count. You can’t say “I bet that I can toss this 100 times and get 100 results” then say “the Universe cheated” when you lose just because the Universe didn’t let you win by “proving” that your probabilities work anymore than you can say that someone cheated at Mornington Crescent. It is literally impossible to cheat at a game with no rules other than pretending that there are rules (which what the Universe does). Getting upset about perpetually losing a game with no rules makes you a) a terrible player and b) a sore loser who never learned to swim and is drowning in a river in Egypt. Eat some humble pie and accept the fact that the Universe just pwned you and your probabilities were wrong.
- “I demand a retoss”
Okay. Fine. Say you
cheat replay your turn again. You toss your coin into the air a 101th 100th time. It falls on the ground on its edge, wobbles a little… Then rolls into a nearby sewer.
- “That was just bad luck!”
So? Luck is a legitimate force. Just because you don’t know how to sense it, measure it, predict it, account for it, plan for it or use it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. If things stopped existing or being true or capable of affecting you or your environment whenever it was inconvenient for you, you’d never have to pay any taxes, bills or wait at red lights.
Luck is a force that acts on you whether you want it to or not and even if you try to pretend it doesn’t. To quote the astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, science – just like luck – is true “whether or not you believe in it. […] That’s why it works”. If you refuse to acknowledge the fact that luck exists you’ll die from stupidity by either not taking the lucky opportunities that come your way because they weren’t presented in a format you accepted to recognize or by refusing to take a hint and persisting in doing ridiculous things until luck gets sick of taking your butt out of the fire. We call that “Natural Selection” and it fortunes the lucky, not the petulant. That your coin rolling into the sewer was a “bad” selection is just your opinion. That it was indeed a Natural occurrence is a fact.
- “In a laboratory setting, this wouldn’t have happened!”
Do you live in a lab? No. Well then… How is this a valid argument? That’s like saying “okay so I lost at Monopoly but if we’d been playing Scrabble, I would have won so I deserve extra Monopoly money and a do-over because I have mad Scrabble skillz!” O.o No you don’t. No one cares that you rock at Scrabble. You’re playing Monopoly right now and you suck at it so fork over those colorful bills and quit using Insane Troll Logic. Also:
^ Does not give a flying toss about your “laboratory conditions” but does indeed toss your laboratory and send your conditions flying.
- “If I toss a coin 100 times, none of my results will magically be a cookie.”
“But that wasn’t magic, that was just luck” you may say. Listen… Just because it’s not flashy, doesn’t mean it’s not magic especially since magic, or the “supernatural”, literally refers to all that which is “attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding“. Can physics explain luck? Can biology? Or chemistry? Or math? Since my views on anthropososophy have yet to be externally legitimized and there is NO (other) science presently recognized by the Human Powers That Be that understands or can explain luck, it is by definition MAGIC. The dictionary said it, not me! But I agree with the dictionary, for what it’s worth.
That being said, for all those saying that the story described above is is just a story and not repeatable in laboratory conditions… duh. That’s my entire point. LIFE is a story and it is not repeatable in laboratory conditions. If probabilities can only exist in laboratory conditions, probabilities obviously can’t exist in and, as such, are NOT an accurate sample of life.
That’s why science can’t accurately predict behavior. That’s why science can’t build bridges that never collapse. That’s why science can’t tell the future. That’s why anyone who tells me the “odds” of succeeding X are 0% is giving me mathematical feedback that is utterly worthless in a real-life context.
Presently, as of April 20th 2016 (which is when I’m writing the first draft of this post), science is mostly stuck building things that don’t have will power. This is something that I find quite tragic because if you didn’t bother using the data available to you to accurately account for what will be, your 100% unsinkable ship will “almost always” sink because 100% allows for an INFINITY of possible successes OR failures much like 0% allows for an infinity of possible failures OR successes. It only takes one of those infinite points to kill you. It only takes one of those infinite points to save you.
It only takes luck, which is the logic of Nature. This luck is not a physical thing. It has no mass, it has no measure, it comes and goes as it pleases and it is dependably fickle. This luck is more than just a period of time in which you can sojourn or a place that you can visit. It is a way of life. It is, in fact, the energy of Life, the Universe and Everything, Even Nothing (which I abbreviate as LUEEN/A). I call this energy that of the “spirit”, or “soul” of the Universe and, as such, agree to call the science that studies it and though which I explore in my as-of-yet-unproven theories “anthroposophy“: the science of spirituality.
If you think the word “spirituality” is too scary and so wish to deny that my logic makes sense, call it whatever you want that will make it less scary for you then comment on my logic, not on your own terror at the idea that we are powerful literally beyond measure (but not necessarily beyond description). Call the science that studies this energy of luck the science of “Bacon Energy”. Call it the science of “Orange (my favourite colour!) Energy”. I don’t care. A rose by any other name still smells just as sweet even if less people would want to sniff it if it was called a “deathflower”. Take a deep breath, a walk and a drink and even maybe a cupcake to calm yourself down. Hell, take a nap. Just make sure that when you comment, it isn’t your fear of the unknown talking but your ability to apply logic to abstract concepts doing the typing.
Everyone progresses (and I am happier and less grumpy) if you leave a positive comment, by which I don’t mean “say I’m right or shut up” but rather “don’t say I’m wrong unless you’re prepared to either a) prove a negative, which I will demand that you do and is mathematically impossible or b) be ignored or, if I’m in a petty mood, receive a very sarcastic picture as a response”. As I’ve mentioned before in this text, I have yet to successfully prove that I’m right and so do not expect anyone to agree with my conclusions. However, I would very much appreciate feedback on my logic. As of yet, no one can say if I have the right or wrong answer but it’s definitely possible to tell me if you think that my equations are taking into account all of the proper variables or not.
So, leave a POSITIVE comment. NEVER tell me the odds. Do NOT presume to be able to tell me if I’ll fail or not in the future; that is hubris and disrespectful because you don’t know and time will answer me more accurately than you could ever hope to do. Instead, tell me what it is you think that I can do today to help me succeed better today at what I’m trying to do today regardless of whether or not what I do today will be a failure or not tomorrow. Or don’t say anything at all. If you have nothing positive to say, enjoy the wonderful sound of silence and don’t comment.
Only if you are sharing love should you ever spread words.