If you have N situations, it does not automatically mean they have same probabilities. I call the mistake of not recognising it—Equiprobability mistake.
Outcomes have to be excluding. So people make the mistake at the very beginnign—at constructing the Ω set. Two of those situations are not excluding. One of them literally guarantees with 100% certainty, that the other will happen. When you have a correct Ω , then probability of one outcome given any other is zero.
To check, whether outcomes are excluding, draw the branching universe graph and imagine a single slice in a much later point of time (Sunday), and count how many parallel universes reached that point. You will find, that only two, but thirders count the second entity twice.
No matter what situation you research, the nodes which you take as outcomes CAN NEVER BE CONSEQUETIVE.
If it was not the axiom, then i would be able add “I throw a dice” into the set of possible numbers that the dice shows at the end, and i would get an nonsense which is not Omega: {I throw the dice, dice shows 1, dice shows 2, shows 3, 4, 5, 6}. Thirders literally construct such an omega and thus get 1⁄3 for an outcome, just like I would get a “1/7 chance” of getting a number6 if i was also using a corrupted omega set.
There is a table. I place on it two apples, jar, bin, box. I pit the first apple into a jar. I put the jar into the box. I put the second apple into the bin.
Comes a thirder and starts counting:
“How many apples in a jar. One. How many apples in the box. One. How many apples in a bin. One. So, there are 3 apples”
And forgets, that th apple in a jar and the apple in the box is THE SAME apple.
P(Monday|Tails)=P(Tuesday|Tails) is technically true, not “because two entities are equal”, but because an entity is compared to itself! It is a single outcome, which is phrased differently by using consequtive events of the single outcome.
When apple is in a jar, it guarantees that it is also in a box, the same way as <Monday and tails> situation guarantees <Tuesday and tails>.
If talking about graphs, both situations are literrally just the node sliding along the branch, not reaching any points of branching.
Frankly, it’s a bit bizarre to me that the absolute majority of people do not notice it. That we still do not have a consensus. As if people mysteriously loose the ability to apply basic probability theory reasoning when talking about “anthropical problems”.
This comment is my thoughts.
If you have N situations, it does not automatically mean they have same probabilities. I call the mistake of not recognising it—Equiprobability mistake.
Outcomes have to be excluding. So people make the mistake at the very beginnign—at constructing the Ω set. Two of those situations are not excluding. One of them literally guarantees with 100% certainty, that the other will happen. When you have a correct Ω , then probability of one outcome given any other is zero. To check, whether outcomes are excluding, draw the branching universe graph and imagine a single slice in a much later point of time (Sunday), and count how many parallel universes reached that point. You will find, that only two, but thirders count the second entity twice. No matter what situation you research, the nodes which you take as outcomes CAN NEVER BE CONSEQUETIVE. If it was not the axiom, then i would be able add “I throw a dice” into the set of possible numbers that the dice shows at the end, and i would get an nonsense which is not Omega: {I throw the dice, dice shows 1, dice shows 2, shows 3, 4, 5, 6}. Thirders literally construct such an omega and thus get 1⁄3 for an outcome, just like I would get a “1/7 chance” of getting a number6 if i was also using a corrupted omega set.
There is a table. I place on it two apples, jar, bin, box. I pit the first apple into a jar. I put the jar into the box. I put the second apple into the bin. Comes a thirder and starts counting: “How many apples in a jar. One. How many apples in the box. One. How many apples in a bin. One. So, there are 3 apples” And forgets, that th apple in a jar and the apple in the box is THE SAME apple.
P(Monday|Tails)=P(Tuesday|Tails) is technically true, not “because two entities are equal”, but because an entity is compared to itself! It is a single outcome, which is phrased differently by using consequtive events of the single outcome.
When apple is in a jar, it guarantees that it is also in a box, the same way as <Monday and tails> situation guarantees <Tuesday and tails>.
If talking about graphs, both situations are literrally just the node sliding along the branch, not reaching any points of branching.
Yes, you are completely correct.
Frankly, it’s a bit bizarre to me that the absolute majority of people do not notice it. That we still do not have a consensus. As if people mysteriously loose the ability to apply basic probability theory reasoning when talking about “anthropical problems”.