20110331, 18:57  Link #22481  
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error

Quote:
Now that the story ended I do think that anything that happened can be explained with that theory, and I do think that it's the best possible explanation. But only for a 90%. In other words I can't help but to think there are a few things that don't fit well with this. Let's take the case of Lion and Will. If you think about them as characters in a story everything makes sense. The fact that they can later be "supported" by Lambda whether Bern likes it or not fits well with the idea of characters that were abandoned by an author but then used by another. The whole story in EP7 then would just be some kind of fictional world created by... well let's just put aside who created this story in the real world... if such persons exists at all... What really matters is the universe where Lion was accepted by Natsuhi which was probably one of Yasu's fantasies after she learned the truth. But then what's with Bern making this claim? Quote:
There are then the various scenarios of the 1998, which cannot be explained simply as fictions. For example the 1998 from EP4 contains so many detailed info about Ange and the people surrounding her that it would be impossible for Tohya and Ikuko to know all of those and to write them without causing an uproar and retaliations from the Sumadera (legal and illegal).
__________________


20110331, 19:24  Link #22482  
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010

Quote:
In other words, most authors are really, really, really against the idea of Lion even being a possibility, which matches up with Bern being able to troll with this fact. "People find it EXTREMELY unlikely that Natsuhi would've ever accepted you." Something like that. Though I doubt there are enough speculative fanfics about Rokkenjima for her to get such an exaggerated numerical figure. 

20110331, 20:24  Link #22483 
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error

But even in the improbable case Bern counted all the fictions that have been written about Umineko, that's still a void statement because people could always write more fictions later thus changing that "mathematical probability".
In fact it shouldn't even be called "probability" if she simply counted the fictions, it should be a simple "percentage". She could only talk about "probability" if she knew how likely are people to write fictions with Lion on it. But that's simply preposterous. As a side note... are there really a minimum of two and a half millions stories on the Rokkenjima incident in the umineko universe?!!! Holy hell...
__________________

20110331, 21:32  Link #22484  
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!

Quote:
Quote:
__________________


20110331, 22:44  Link #22486 
Artist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!

Suggesting an alternative view:
Yasu as shown in arc 7 tends to "rewrite" her real reality into another, as long as she can believe it. Low probability could refer to how unlikely it is that Yasu herself believes this was her life. I know this should be obvious but look at everything else she did believe it was. 
20110401, 02:15  Link #22487  
The True Culprit

Quote:
Or she's exactly what she claims to be, and pantheistic solipsism is in effect. Or both.
__________________


20110401, 02:47  Link #22488  
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010

Quote:
The readers were already part of metaworld since Higurashi, so nothing strange if the author himself is present there too. Spoiler for Higurashi meta:


20110401, 08:28  Link #22491  
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009

Quote:
In other words, there was a chance that a real world could have existed in which Lion was accepted, and that chance was a certain probability which Bern has the power to estimate. However, that doesn't make the Lion story any less fanciful fiction. Quote:
Again, I find it highly improbable that the text we receive as Umineko episodes is the exact same content as exists in all the stories as written on RPrime. At least some aspects of the story are probably supposed to run parallel to the "original documents" we never get to see. It's impossible to sort out which, but in my mind the metaworld and 1998 are by far the least likely to have ever actually appeared in the text, with the magic scenes and mystery scenes increasingly more likely. Particularly since we don't actually know with certainty when Alliance was released. In the ep6 1998 Dawn has apparently just come out, which would mean Alliance would have to precede it, which means Alliance can't contain something written about 1998 unless it's completely speculative. Of course that's not a very good benchmark, as that entire Featherine sequence breaks just about every rule of the fictional framework we have.
__________________


20110401, 10:15  Link #22492  
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error

Renall how the hell you can estimate the probability of events that have already happened? How can you tell that they could have gone differently? It's absolutely impossible. What happened happened, with a 100% certainty.
Probabilities are only meant to represent our limited knowledge about the variables that influence an event. In theory the Demon of Laplace doesn't have that problem and can foresee the result of any event with 100% certainty. However once an event has happened we don't need to have the power of that demon to know what was the inevitable result. I can agree that a coin toss has a 50% probability of showing either face, but only because I lack the knowledge of all the related variables, the probability only reflect my ignorance. I maintain that if I knew all of the variables I could predict the result. So after the coin toss has happened I will claim that such result had a 100% probability of happening. The only case where you are entitled to talk about probabilities for past events is in the case you accept the many world interpretation of quantum physics. But if there's just a single universe what happened simply happened. Did you understand my point? My point is that fictional theory alone cannot explain everything, you still need to use the many world interpretation to explain some facts... or assume that Ryuukishi messed up his story. P.S: note that Bern is talking in present time. Quote:
__________________
Last edited by JanPoo; 20110401 at 10:26. 

20110401, 10:54  Link #22493  
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010

Quote:
Quote:
Probabilities can be representative of "things we don't know" as well as "things that haven't happened yet", basically. If I flip a coin and hide it from you, from your perspective, there's still a 5050 chance of each. 

20110401, 11:08  Link #22494  
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error

Quote:
Let me make a question. the chance of a coin toss to give head as a result is 50% as per probabilistic rules the probabilities of two different events happening must be multiplied. therefore the chance of two coin toss to give both head is 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25 So far it's not debatable. Now let's say the first coin toss ha been done already and it was a head. What is the probability that the second coin toss will give head as well?
__________________
Last edited by JanPoo; 20110401 at 11:56. 

20110401, 12:10  Link #22495  
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010

Quote:
The thing is, your argument about a deterministic universe seems to destroy the rest of your argument. As far as I can tell, following your logic, it's invalid to apply probabilities to ANYTHING ever because everything has an 100% chance of happening or a 0% chance of happening. The thing is... that isn't how probability works. Probability is merely quantifying the uncertainty of on the information we don't have. Whether we don't have that information because it hasn't happened yet (and we don't know enough variables to predict that) or because the result has been hidden from us is irrelevant. 

20110401, 12:21  Link #22496  
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error

The question is: what's the probability of both coins to give head.
Before the first coin was tossed it was 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25 After the first coin was tossed resulting a head it became 0.5 so x * 0.5 = 0.5 what has become that x? yeah 1, in other words 100% The probability of what has already happened is 100% If you don't understand that you'be better quit at betting, else you'll do like those retards that think x number at the lottery has more probability to be extracted because it's a long time that it wasn't. Quote:
Quote:
Therefore probabilities are meaningless on things that you know. If you realize that the very purpose of the probabilities is to quantify the uncertainty of information that we don't have, you should also realize that for what concerns informations that we have then it's not a matter of probabilities anymore.
__________________


20110401, 13:10  Link #22497  
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009

Quote:
Quote:
The probability at the time an event happened that it would have the outcome it did has no bearing on the recorded result afterward. The notion that only one outcome was possible is nonsensical; although obviously realworld factors influence the outcome in ways one could theoretically measure, let's pretend we're dealing with mathematically isolated coins and other objects. Your coin example is overly simplistic, so let's take a die. If I roll a die there is a oneinsix chance of any one side coming up. Once I have rolled the die and found that it rolled, say, three, the result of that roll is indeed a matter of record. It was three, and nothing in the universe can change that. However, that doesn't mean the chance of rolling three was 100%. In fact, the chance was ~1617%. It was actually more likely than not that I wouldn't roll a three. But I did roll three. That's fine. But the point is, I can go back and examine the conditions preceding the roll and understand what the odds were of rolling what I actually rolled. This is how we can say something like "Huh, I rolled three sixes for 18, that's unlikely." Because the chance of rolling 18 with three dice is quite low relative to other totals. The unlikeliness of the event doesn't mean the event didn't happen. But the reverse is also true. A very likely event is not guaranteed to happen simply because the odds of something different happening were incredibly low at the time, and then the expected result occurred. In Bern's case, the same is true. The notion that Lion was accepted by Natsuhi in the present world is impossible, because she didn't. However, one can go back and look at all the thousands upon thousands of thoughts, actions, and conditions on that day in 1967 and determine some hypothetical probability that, were the day replayed from some arbitrary point in time billions of times over, that Natsuhi would accept Lion x out of n times. She didn't, but it doesn't mean she never could have. Merely that as it played out she did not. Note of course that a fiction hypothesis isn't even required to obey this. In fiction you can place a fifth Ushiromiya adult, Frank Ushiromiya, who never existed and never had any opportunity to exist (well, most likely). So even if the chance of Lion's acceptance is literally zero (for instance, because there never was a baby), a fiction can be written around the idea all the same. That does mean you have to reconcile Bern's line, but it's much easier to do that than it is to go on a rail against theoretical probability.
__________________


20110401, 13:14  Link #22498  
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010

Quote:
I guess this makes more sense, but you can still construct a probability if you use a given. "Given that Ushiromiya Natsuhi received this baby 19 years ago, the probability that she would keep it is X depending on other things that could've happened". It's if you theoretically didn't have the knowledge that she rejected the baby. 

20110401, 14:09  Link #22499 
The True Culprit

To make this even more simple, guys, Bern is (under fictional theory) a fictional character that has magical probability powers. Therefore WITHIN THE NARRATIVE, she is a fictional character giving setting fluff.
It's like if Spiderman says there was a 89% chance that the radioactive spiderbite would've killed him instead of giving him superpowers. Yea, in actuality it was 100% because he was predestined to get awesome superheroes so Marvel could sell a comic series, but inuniverse this isn't the case.
__________________

20110401, 14:13  Link #22500  
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error

Quote:
But let's even said that those things weren't true, who wrote them, why and how? I hope you realize that 1) The idea that weren't true is merely a speculation. 2) It would be extremely lame if they were, there isn't even a "catbox" scenario here to justify it. Quote:
Do you understand? Bern said the probability is not the probability was. Therefore your whole point on this issue is completely void for the case at hand. But let's talk about the philosophy of probability. Actually let's not talk about it, let's just say that I firmly believe that the result of die roll can be theoretically determined with 100% certainty by knowing all the related variables and you have no damn way to demonstrate that I'm wrong not with logic nor with empirical methods. So your claim that I don't understand the philosophy of probability is quite pretentious because you are assuming that your philosophy is right and mine is wrong. The theory of probabilities itself is absolutely unrelated to such issues anyway. You can still use probabilities for things that are absolutely determined. For example if I ask you which of my closed hands holds a coin, it's a matter of probabilities for you but it's absolutely determined for me. But let's not talk about this. Let's rather talk about how Bern could mathematically determine the likeliness of Natsuhi making a decision with such a precision. There is only one way to quantify the human behavior: statistic. There is absolutely no other way. So in the case Bern has seen 2.5 millions of universes where Natsuhi doesn't accept Lion and only one where she does, then she can by all means mathematically infer that the statistic probability of such an event happening is as she says. But if what she's got is just one single case... statistic can't help you there. A single case has no statistic relevance. Quantifying human behavior with a single case is impossible unless you posses superhuman knowledge which Bern isn't supposed to have. Quote:
Quote:
How are you going to determine and quantify those things that "could have happened"?
__________________


Thread Tools  

