Even if you include esoteric options, like being a Boltzmann brain, you can have negatives with way more probability than 999999/1000000. It’s EASY to be more certain than that on “will I fail to win the next powerball drawing”. And more certain still on “did I fail to win the previous powerball drawing”.
Some recursive positives approach 1 - “I exist”. Tautologies remain actually 1: P → P.
But for random human-granularity events where you have only very indirect evidence, you’re right. 99% would be surprising, 95% would take a fair bit of effort.
Yeah, I agree there are domains where you can be more confident because you fully understand the domain (and then only have to account for model uncertainty in “I’m literally insane or in a simulation or whatever.”)
Even if you include esoteric options, like being a Boltzmann brain, you can have negatives with way more probability than 999999/1000000. It’s EASY to be more certain than that on “will I fail to win the next powerball drawing”. And more certain still on “did I fail to win the previous powerball drawing”.
Some recursive positives approach 1 - “I exist”. Tautologies remain actually 1: P → P.
But for random human-granularity events where you have only very indirect evidence, you’re right. 99% would be surprising, 95% would take a fair bit of effort.
Yeah, I agree there are domains where you can be more confident because you fully understand the domain (and then only have to account for model uncertainty in “I’m literally insane or in a simulation or whatever.”)