Do Women Care if We Love Her and Respect Her?

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

When they choose who they want to mate with?

Despite what everyone else said about what women want, I have never met yet one beautiful girl that seems to care whether I love her or not. They choose me anyway even though I repeatedly say I don’t love her, I do not want to get married, I hate marriage, etc. That despite they have other males stalking her professing love, etc.

Why offer what target market do not want?

I may be wrong. If they really care, then I would introduce them to those that provide those kind of love. It’s just that no body seems to care.

Not that I want women that do not want me anyway. In fact, I often introduce women to other rich, handsome, tall, and smart guys. It’s a good way to maintain good relationship. Can’t catch them all anyway.

Exactly like what evolution theory predicts.

I planned to get laid for free actually as I often did:)

I am just trying to straighten up some knee jerks opinion people have about me.

I am quite old now and feel like settling down and enlarging biz. But no, I got to go back to my dream. Yap. I got to sleep with lots of chicks and then donate sperms to thousands. That’s my main goal in life now.

In fact, the higher class the girl, the more likely she’ll do it for free. I slept with a beautiful girl with a steady income as top sellers insurance real estate. Unfortunately my biz went tits up 3 years ago and she demanded marriage. Wealth goes up, cost go down and via versa. That’s another rule I learn.

I do not mind paying. However, I prefer girls wanting my cock rather than my money. In fact, I explicitly said that to my gf before she bitches about marrying Sad.

And no I am not mad at gdb. I felt exactly the same way toward men like me (pro polygamy, promiscuous men) when I was young. The difference between you and I is that I stuck to my principles, paid dearly for that and realized I was simply wrong. A very long story. Quite painful actually.

All this time we see men with many women. What’s their secret? I thought no women want to share. Must be something insidious. Well, there is indeed a secret. It’s not that complicated. It’s not insidious. But that’s the issue. It’s a secret.

Quietly hidden behind layers and layers of indoctrination and censorship. When somebody says something that might disclose of the truth, horde of people would get “offended”. The truth, will be declared offensive. Whatever the mass believe are effectively true because such belief often has ways to perpetuate itself.

I am the only one from my family with children. My 2 brothers do not have wife yet. My beautiful female cousin made $4k/month and also don’t get married. While some jerk just marry some women and leave her with debt and kids. I am losing gene pool survival game at this rate, and so is all of you.

The issue is not that women don’t want to do it for free. They can’t. In most cases, only rich women can afford “free sex”.

And what’s most males’ money for if not to make women that choose you happy + raising children? Actually there is another less efficient use. To impress women. That’s why men spend a lot of money not on women, but on expensive cars and big houses. Women like to sleep, often for free, with men with such assets.

So the idea that if you have money you got to “force” women to get laid is simply very wrong. However, that’s the kind of idea people have. Consensual become non consensual and the alternative, which is effectively forced, count as consensual.

The 4 ways to pay for kids.
1. Marriage, heavily regulated
2. Child support, also heavily regulated (but the least bad in my opinion). You don’t need to put contract, and yea, 10% of your income is not that much. This one is what drives marriage out.
3. Welfare. Un libertarian
4. Women work. Most women that work, don’t survive well in the gene pool.

To be frank, I am not desperate to get laid. I want to wait till I am a millionaire first before becoming a father. I think if all males are like that there will be no poverty. However, I also know that even after I become a millionaire, I won’t get a lot unless I start early.

While someone else that’s far less financially responsible for me will get a lot. So that left only one choice. Join them. Get laid early.

Soon, I will join another seminar on how to get laid with friends. But most of us know we can get high quality girls for free if we really try. As for getting girls and pay for it, that one is already obvious. Striptease with 16 girls are only $10 in Indonesia.

The irony is, the reason why the price is so cheap is because all those laws protecting women. If not because of those norms, I bet my current wife would have picked Tom Cruise.

What I Mean by Women=Sex Object

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200912/why-are-we-surprised

This guy says that clearly. I feel like I am putting women above men actually. You guys think the opposite.

Let me restate that clearly. Under libertarian principle, women will RULE the world precisely because they’re sex object. Under libertarian principle, those who own something everybody want will rule the world. Man want women. Is that clear? Obviously it’s not happening too easily. After all, males rule the world, mainly through force and fraud right? Women neither own or control their body. They just think they are.

Well, to be honest, I used to think like you. We are all indoctrinated to think that women=sex object somehow demean women. I think that misconception is the heart of all bigger government, poverty, etc.

While demeans are not really a scientific term and it’s hard to argue about it, interests are quite scientific. We can observe what people choose when they have legal (or effectively legal) choice. It’s science folks. Keep that in mind.

Mama Liberty, what do you think?

Here is a quote:
“For a man to walk into a bar and have his choice of any woman he wants, he would have to be the ruler of the world. For a woman to have the same power over men, she’d have to do her hair.” -Bill Maher

Women don’t rule the world, because they never have to.

Here is another article:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200802/the-paradox-polygamy-i-why-most-americans-are-polygamous

“Would you rather be the second or third wife of Mel Gibson or the only wife of Willard Scott?”, to which one of the panelists, the conservative commentator and activist Susan Carpenter McMillan, responded, “If it comes to Mel Gibson, I wouldn’t care if I was one, two, or three.”

The battle between creationist and those supporting evolution theory is just started. However, those 2 articles will be what the mainstream religions will be.

Evolution Theory, Right, and Effective Right

Guys, the article is joking. That guy don’t really suggest anything. He’s just trying to show what evolution theory, which is a disprovable theory of life is all about to common folks. He’s trying to show how absurd socialized health care is.

He, like me, tries to help you understand life the way IT IS, not the way it SHOULD BE.

GDP, I agree with you about right. I was and may still be a libertarian. But you’re not on scientific realm. You’re on ideological realm. It’s 2 different things okay.

As about me, I think you just have too much knee jerk reaction. I already got 2 kids with one of the most beautiful girls in my high school. I am just sad I got only 1 beautiful girl instead of all 5. Yes there are other pretty women that says they want me too, with sufficient financial arrangement. I introduced them to someone else instead to spread the joy.

I NEVER said women has to have sex with me. If no body wants me, I would peacefully play video game till the day I die. No hard feeling. In fact, even if a woman wants me things may still not work out, and I would politely show her some other males richer than I am. No hard feeling.

What I disagree with is others’ so called “right” or power preventing rich people from consensually mating. Such is the case of prohibition of various of virtually all consensual acts, namely to get rid competitors.

Recently, in my country, a bunch terrorist demand government to prevent some porn star from coming to Indonesia. They said, like you always said, it demeans women. Well, that’s the kind of thing I disagree.

I think women have right to be a porn star and to show up in porn, irrelevant of what others feel. I also understand that women EFFECTIVELY don’t have that right. Effective right comes from power and women don’t have the guts and power to fight for their right. Why you keep deliberately misunderstanding me does puzzles me though.

And if you say money doesn’t matter and no beautiful girls are willing to have sex just for money, well…. Maybe not in US. Nah… I doubt even that. Let’s just say money is not my main selling point. Girls have been hitting over me when I was poor. I just feel I can get even more.

Right comes from productivity is in theory.
Another theory is right comes from God.

What it really means is some people believe that right SHOULD comes from productivity or from God. That’s it. That’s all. It’s just an idea. An idea that greatly affect our life. But that’s not reality. It’s not science.

I have a right over my property. Then a thief stole it. Then government didn’t bother chasing that vermin. Then what? It’s my property. My right. Then what? Then the thief is wrong? So what? Your concept of right, is just a theory.

It’s time to stop becoming too theoretical here.

A self fulfilling theory I hope. I am trying to tell you how stuff really works in reality so we can make your theory, a reality.

I am saying right as in effective right.

That one comes from the front of gun barrel or something like Lenin said.

Look the rich knows something about making money, the politician knows something about politic okay Smiley

As girls as objects. Everyone is an object. That’s the hard of objectivitism isn’t it? Everything is an object. I think an objectivist himself said that somewhere. Beautiful girls (not all girls) are sex objects, as much as Michael Jordan is a basket ball player, and as much as meat sellers are effectively meat vending machines. What is so wrong about that? Yea they have right not to be the label we put them too. Then what? Would they bother?

If people call me programming object, I don’t get mad. I am proud because that’s what I am good at. That doesn’t imply I am not a human being with right. It simply means I am a good programmer. A DAMN good one. How come people get mad when I called women sex object?

You talk about girls that do not want to be called sex objects. What about girls that want to? What about girls that want to be sex objects? Where are their right?

Where is mother Loraine? Loraine? We got a break down of communication here. As some ex beautiful girl, can you help straighten things up?

Should We Force All Countries to Become Democracies?

Recently Indonesian government demand that Jogja Governer should be elected.

As of now, the descendant of ancient Jogja King is always the governor. He disagree. That one is not very surprising. Here is what’s surprising. Most Jogjan diagrees too.

Jogjakarta, which is the only monarch within Indonesia is the most free, most liberal, and one of the most economically advance regions in Indonesia. That king, so far, governed well. Not to mention that the king supported Indonesian’s independence against the dutch. There would be no Indonesia without Jogja monarch and now a country that the kingdom help build will destroy it.

I lived in Jakarta, which is the capital, and I feel like stealing money because all the money often has to go through Jakarta first.

However, Jogja is prosperous despite not being the capital.

How come that one monarch govern his country well beyond the other democratically elected regions?

Well, democracy has plus and minus. The plus is people are not too stupid. We don’t need a smart government, we need something that’s not too stupid and democracy sort of works. Another plus is you don’t get more power simply because you’re more violent. That greatly demotivate people from usurping the thrones by, say, civil war. Of course there are many pluses on democracy. We always get a top dog for the executive branch rather than idiots that happen to be the son of the last emperor is another thing.

No system is perfect.

Democracy is ruled by whoever make the most kids. We know how that leads to in US. That’s a serious misalignment of interest.

What about immigration? Imagine. Say I am a socialist, then I come to US for job, then I vote for socialism. What will happen? I effectively got a “stake” on a country by simply coming there. That’s what democracy is right? Voting right for population (not citizenship). Yea in US you got to be citizen first, but there is a strong pressure to turn anyone there into citizen as if it’s their right. No wonder well managed countries then counter that with another inefficient strategy, preventing immigration. Now I am not saying it’s right. But sometimes there is a deeper problem that should be cured first before we cure symptoms.

Dubai do not have that problem. 80% of Dubai population do not have citizenship. Is Dubai bad? Well those workers get paid more do they? Because those immigrants will never rule Dubai’s ruling sultan never has problems with allowing them to come in.

What about Jogja? Well there is a reason why Indonesians are not very rich yet. Most of the people stupidly opposes individual freedom.

If Jogja becomes democracy, Jogja’s prosperity would simply attract a lot of people. Most of those people do not like freedom as much as Jogja’s citizen. Then those people can vote. Jogja then will become just like every other region in Indonesia.

However, if Jogja is still a monarch, people that come to Jogja will not have power to change the status quo of freedom. Jogja will still be prosperous. Other regions will then follow. Those who do come to Jogja will be those who like the way the king govern. Which is another important point. You don’t like it, well just move out.

The same issue is happening in Bali. Balinese do not like muslim immigrants. Why? Well Australian tourists are sunbathing totally naked in Bali. The balinese do not mind at all. After all they get paid a lot and those tourists are their main income. Also those female white tourists are quite hot. I wouldn’t complain here.

Like Jogja, Bali is one of the most prosperous region in Indonesia.. Then prosperity attract Javanese in large number. Then the muslims refer to Indonesian laws against pornography demands those tourists to wear thongs.

I got nothing against Muslims and Javanese. It’s just that as long as we’re richer, they should be more like us than the other way around. Democracy combined with lax immigration, could result in things going the other way around.

Women Are Sex Objects as Sure as Michael Jordan is a Basket Ball Player

Fair enough. I just feel funny when I said that and curious about your reaction would be.

This really should be another topic.

NEVER in this forum or anywhere I said women shouldn’t have gun or shouldn’t choose for her life. In fact, I would encourage it. She has right for her body, I have right for my cash. That’s it. Fair enough? Women, especially ugly women, shouldn’t have right to interfere on how I would spend my money consensually. That’s violating my right there. Clear?

If some women do not want to be seen as sex object, then fine. Most of the time, I would stay away from them and they would stay away from me. No problem. No biggy. They can hang around with other wush… (I mean morally upright politically correct effeminate) males.

Also I do not mean being sex object is a bad thing. Hot women are sex object as sure as Michael Jordan is a basket ball player. Of course, Michael can play baseball too. It’s just that baseball is not how he mainly add values to the market. When women can be sex object, they will be above males. What other jobs you get paid so well doing something you already know without training? More money, more power. What is so bad with that?

No body has a right to force anyone to change his mind. It’s like freedom of religion. People held far more unreasonable beliefs than I am based on faith. We tolerate that. I think the way feminazis want people to stop thinking women as sex object is beyond consensual persuasion.

Not allowing employer to propose groping hot employee is also wrong. It’s force and that’s wrong. If all males want to think women as sex objects, it’s males’ right. Women also have plenty of stupid idea and we let them think freely right?

By the way, I think it’s time you guys start growing balls and think outside the box those feminazis enclosed you. Again, I can’t force you.

Also I don’t expect you will change your mind. It’s hardwired in your gene. I read something about white people that’s you probably disagree. Capitalism is not really white’s trade mark. Ming dinasty is capitalistic too and the Chinese often has the smallest government. If there is anything unique about Europeans is their (Ayn Rand will disagree with me on this) sense of equality and their respect toward women. Democracy (equal power for everyone), Monogamy (equal reproductive success for everyone), and socialism (equal wealth for everyone) are all made in Europe. As if something is wrong if one guy is ubber alles.

As a capitalist that believe in meritocracy, I think that’s bad. But what can I say? You’re the most advance civilization for now. Maybe I am wrong.

The essence of my idea is that all prohibition against consensual act is bad because it’s effectively a market distortion that misproperly align people’s interest toward productivity. I believe government regulation on sex and reproduction is the BIGGEST market distortion and hence the one should be fought most.

I don’t believe your genes decide your productivity. I know plenty of poor high IQ people and rich low IQ people. People used to say the Jews, Black, Asians, Non White, Jin, Roma, Armenian, Palestinians, Arabs, Chinks, as inferior. Well fine. They have a right for their opinion, while I disagree of course. My say is, let them proof it. Let the market decide. I am sure, the market will show that eventually, it’s individuals rather than their ethnic that’ll give wealth to those who are productive. I may be wrong. Whatever that maybe, let the market decide.

Commercialization (which is 90% of libertarianism according to Madonna in “Material Girl”) has motivate males (and a lot of women) to be diligent, industrious, and productive. But wealth means little if someone else decides what we can buy with our wealth, which is what happens now due to many restrictions. Why not allow males to buy what most males truly want? Sexual service from beautiful girls. I am sure motivation to be wealthy will be much more and we will get even richer.

Marriage, and monogamy, when non consensually enforced through governments’ restriction, is simply the biggest market distortion. It’s far more dangerous than income tax, welfare program, tariff, and trades.

Free market has improved our computer speed by 2 every 5 years. Free market have improved our wealth. Free market have improved our standard of living. Guess what? All those achievement will go to whoever make most kids. Wealth distribution, redistribution, crime, genocide, or simply marriage and inheritance, ALL will go to those who make kids. When you inherit your wealth, the kid is only (at most) half yours right?

So why not extend free market to what truly matters, reproduction. Let the market decide who breed. Commercialization of computer makes computer faster. Commercialization of sex makes the productive more breed more.

Are Women Just Sex Objects?

Are women sex object? Why not let the market decide. How much money a prostitute make? How much money she would have made if she insisted on being a programmer and compete with males without help from affirmative action. Profit maximization principles means you are, or will become, what the market value you most for, quite obviously.

Believe it or not, I actually value others more as persons that most people. It’s just that I do it out of choice if I care about others. I have no obligation to care about others beyond what I need to provide them so they give me what I WANT.

I paid my employees way above market price, because they’re human. I made a biz not just for me but for humans around me. Do I have to do so? No. Not under capitalism. I go above and beyond because I choose to. Because I feel like I care. Because they’ve been good to me. I have no obligation to go above and beyond that, but I choose to do so anyway. The same way if one day I see women as something more than sex object, it would be because I choose to.

Some women sell their name card design to me and a member of mensa. Okay, she’s more than sex object that. She is a friend (one of a few that understand me). But it’s my right to decide what she is for me. Obviously if I insist that she’s nothing more than sex object then I won’t have a great name card design, but it’s my choice.

It’s the bigots that don’t see people as people and hence don’t deserve to be treated as people.

The essence of libertarianism is we have a right to hang out with and ONLY with those we please for the purpose and ONLY for the purpose we please.

Women are sex object, at least for me, as much as meat sellers are meat sources. Obviously there are more than meat selling behind those meat sellers. Maybe he has a family. Maybe he wants some vacation. Maybe one day I care. However, as a sovereign individuals I have the absolute right to see people as their interface that fit my goals and nothing beyond that. Most of the time, I see meat sellers, as meat sellers. People matters to me as much as how they are useful to me and not much more.

C’mon. Do you ever visit a homeless person? Maybe you do, but unlikely. Those are none of your biz. Do you cry when your landlord’s son died? Maybe you do especially if the landlord is chinese that pay anyone to cry on their funeral. I am not even sure we, Chinese, do that anymore.

To us, landlords are just housing provider, which we pay for it, and that’s it.

The same way, women’s non sex object aspect is beyond of my concern. Unless they’re good at programming, but most of pretty ones are not and I don’t like working with ugly women. It’s my right to offer women (and looks like in my country I still have that right), to say that they can work for me if I can grope her all over. It’s a fair offer. She doesn’t like it, she can refuse. But it’s my right to give that offer and her right to accept that.

If I want to see women as only sex object, it’s my right. If the women do not like that, it’s also their right. It’s also her right to stay away from people like me, obviously, but the number of women that find such offers offensive is not as many as you think.

What enrage me is if some hot women don’t mind being my sex object and some other people bitch about it. In fact, that’s why I hate marriage so much. A beautiful girl I like cannot divorce her husband because her husband disagree. Yes you said the girl agreed to get married. But virtually all alternatives and information about alternatives are illegal. Not to mention so many material marriage terms are not explicitly said. At the least, there is nothing libertarianly wrong with trying to persuade people from getting married in the first place. Marriage is declining anyway.

I used to think that feminists are my allies. That’s because I know real reason behind marriage is to ration females in equal share for everyone. After I meet you guys, I see that things work differently in rich countries. The males are rich enough to attract mates. It’s the women that oppose freedom. Doesn’t matter. Libertarianism means you choose what you choose independent of others’ will. The only way people can have a hard bargaining position to “compel” you to do what they want is if they offer you something YOU WANT.

If they have nothing I want, they’re most likely nothing to me. Also aspects of their life beyond what I WANT means nothing for me, unless I want to use it to get what I want.

Religions as Views of Their Members

Religions are often just views of their members. Different members have different prejudice and hence interpret things differently.

Jews tend to think “love thy neighbor as thy self” to mean we should be “fair”

And Christian tends to think that to mean charity. This seems to be motivated by desire to accuse those who are rich as wrong.

Business, under capitalism, is not only fair, but is actually quite merciful.

Under capitalism, we acquire land through buying. Yet, morally superior people would call land, holy land, which justifies, holy war, and holy lies, and holy rocket, and holy bombing, and holy this and holy that, creating conflicts of a century.

Let everything be governed under capitalistic principle and we’re all be better of.

Ariel and Puji, Unusual Marriage

I think the problem is not islam or anti islam. Both seems to have axes to grind.

The problem is someone else wanting to regulate others’ private lives.

Besides they vast majority of people are using monogamous marriage as prescribed by government.

Government recipes are often far from normal.

If in Europe, the guy can not force the wife for sex (so sex is not part of the contract). Husband must keep paying girls already having an affair even though the girl already screw the other guy.

Some people think it’s good obviously because otherwise it won’t be the rule. However, most alternatives are prohibited and such terms are not explicitly stated in marriage vows. Perhaps during marriage vows, the groom should pronounce explicitly that he understand that sex is not part of the contract.

If in iran, for example, some scholars says that husband can beat up her wife. Marriage became a kind of bdsm. Again, I don’t see this as wrong, as long as it’s explicitly stated in the contract and other forms of marriage are equally easy. It’s not.

Just let the market participants make their own marriage contract and all the material aspects of the contract inserted in their marriage contract. Why should government make marriage rules? Why should others interpret what religious marriage means for the couple (or tripple, or quadruple, or whatever)

Some relationship are approved by government and some are not. Why governments decide?

My suggestion is to liberalize all kind of marriage.

Want polygamy, polyandry, prostitution, marriage contracts, orgy, pornography, mail order bride, or whatever, let the market decide. We just need a secular witness to tidy things up done.

If too much is not allowed, the vast majority of people will follow the only alternatives left, either abstinence or government’ sanctioned marriage. Of course, abstinence is worst than death penalty.

Others will want to kill Puji or Ariel to “defend” monogamy marriage from more efficient alternative. But if all is fine, the institution of marriage as the governments want would not sell. Nothing is left to defend.

It’ll happen anyway under globalization.

If Islam allows marriage with a 12 year old girl, but does not allow others to have concubines, people would see Islam as trying to regulate others. Of course, Islam will have a lot of enemies because people want to be free, especially when they got nukes. But if all other options exist, the enemies are only those opposing freedom.

Bayesian Faith Why Faithful People Believe Strange Things

Hmm… This is very interesting about Bayesian. I’ll check that out.

So let’s see. P(A|B) is P(A^B)/P(B)

According to bayesian rule, P(B|A)=P(A^B)/P(A)=P(A^B)/P(B)*P(B)/P(A)=P(A|B)*P(B)/P(A).

So probability of P(B|A) is just the probability of P(A|B) times Probability of B divided by Probability of A. That’s because now we’re dividing by A rather than B. Probability of (terrorist|muslims) is probably 80%. Probability of (muslim|terrorists) is less than 1%. That’s simply because there are way more muslims than terrorists most of which have less violent job. If P(A|B)=1 we have what we call logically B->A

Actually that’s not quite correct. In bayesian theory, P(A|B) means “The probability (degree of confidence) that A is true GIVEN that B is assumed to be true” — not “the probability that B implies A,” or even far worse, Popper’s self-inconsistent “propensity” interpretation that it means the “the probability that B causes A.”

The logical relation B->A has the somewhat counterintuitive boolean representation (not(B and (not A))), which can also be written as ((not B) or A). That is because B->A only demands that when B is true, A must also be true, so ((B=True) and (A=False)) means B->A must be False, whereas if B is false, the implication relationship does not say anything about whether or not A must be true.

Quote
Say B is the probability that a guy is guilty say for mutilating hot babes to pieces with tooth pics. Say A is an evidence that would be true if B is true. Say A is that defendant clothes will be filled with blood. So P(A|B)=1.

Then P(B|A)=P(A|B)*P(B)/P(A)=1 *P(B)/P(A) . Wait a minute. If P(A) is very small than yea P(B|A) should go up significantly. If P(A) is common then it’s circumstantial.

Where does it say that P(B) stuck at 1 once our prior is 1 again? I got to take a look.

That’s not the clearest way of looking at it. Try the example below the following background paragraphs

In bayesian probability theory, all probabilities are conditional on your background information, which consists of the things you assume to be a priori true (your axioms), and whatever empirical data that you have acquired by experience; for short, I’ll write this as the logical predicate “Exp,” for “Experience plus A Priori Assumptions,” or just “E” for short.

Bayesian theory takes it as axiomatic that the probability of a statement that is always False (i.e., a logical contradiction) is zero independent of any condition X, P(False|X) = 0, and likewise the probability of a statement that is always True (a tautology) is unity independent of any condition X, P(True|X) = 1.

Also, you must explicitly specify your “Universe of Discourse” up front, i.e., the set of alternative hypotheses {H1,H2,…,Hn} that you intend to consider. The hypotheses defining the Universe of Discourse are usually taken to be mutually exclusive, i.e., if one hypothesis is true, then all the other hypotheses must be false (this can always be arranged by the logical equivalent of “orthogonalization”), and exhaustive, i.e., no other explanation will be considered. (This latter assumption is not a restriction, since one can always tack on the “catch-all” hypothesis “There is some other explanation that I haven’t thought of yet” — which depending on your degree of humility or arrogance can have an a priori probability that may be quite significant to quite small, as long as it is less than 1 but more than 0.)

Since {H1,H2,…,Hn} are assumed exhaustive and mutually exclusive, exactly one hypothesis must always be true, so it’s taken as an axiom that the logical conjunction H1+H2+…+Hn (“+” means “logical OR”) must be true with certainty, implying that P(H1+H2+…+Hn|X) == 1. Also, since by mutual exclusivity exactly one of the hypotheses can be true while the others must be false, we take it as axiomatic that P(H1+H2+…+Hn|X) = P(H1|X) + P(H2|X) + … + P(Hn|x) == 1.

Since by the first axiom of bayesian probability, P(A + (not A)|X) = 1 for all X, and since only one of A or (not A) can be true, it immediately follows that P(not A|X) = 1 – P(A|X) for all X.

Finally, there is the “chain rule” for factoring joint probabilities into conditionals: P(A&B|X) == P(A|X&B) * P(B|X) == P(B|X&A) * P(A|X). (For readability reasons, this is more often written as P(A,B|X) == P(A|X,B) * P(B|X) == P(B|X,A) * P(A|X), and even to drop the “AND commas” if it won;t result in ambiguity.)

It turns out that the above axioms completely define all of bayesian probability theory, and that from them it’s possible to compute the probability of any statement that can be expressed in terms of the set of hypothesis {H1,H2,…,Hn} and the “background predicate” E representing your axioms and experience. Furthermore, a careful analysis shows that they represent the unique extension of boolean logic to truth-values intermediate between 0 and 1, and that any other set of rules will fail to be consistent with logic. (I’m leaving out some technical details here, as the proof of this theorem turns out to be remarkable subtle.)

Ah I see. So we make P(Something|X) as a new probability universe. Wow I forgot that part of probability when I was in school.

Quote
A number of useful corollaries can be proved from the above axioms, for propositions A, B, and X:

  • P(A|X,A) == 1, since it’s given that A is assumed to be true, and by definition P(True|X) = 1;
  • P(A,A|X) = P(A|X), since logically A&A == A
  • P(B|X,A,A) = P(B|X,A), since logically A&A == A;
  • P(A|X,B) = P(A|X), since if A and B are logically independent, knowing B tells us nothing about A;
  • P(A,B|X) = P(A|X)  * P(B|X), if A and B are logically independent (follows from chain-ruloe plus above);
  • P(A+B|X) = P(A|X) + P(B|X) – P(A,B|X), which allows us to treat correlations;

Bayes’ Theorem follows directly from the chain-rule axiom: P(A|BX) = P(B|AX) * P(A|X) / P(B|X). However, this is not the most useful form for reasoning about how to update the a priori probabilities of your hypotheses given new information. Denote your empirical data or new information by the logical predicate “D.” Assume that you also have some “statistical model” that predicts the probability P(D|Hi,E) (your degree of confidence or how “unsurprised” you would be) that you would see data D given your past experience E and assuming that hypothesis “Hi” is true; P(D|Hi,E) is often called the “data likelihood” of hypothesis “Hi.” Bayes’ Theorem allows you to invert P(D|Hi,E)  to give the updated or “a posteriori” probability of hypothesis “Hi,” P(Hi|D,E) = P(D|Hi,E) * P(Hi|E) / P(D|E) in terms of the “data likelihood” for “Hi,” the a priori probability P(Hi|E), and a quantity we don’t seem to have, P(D|E), the probability one would observe the data “D” given only our experience, sometimes called the “evidence” provided by the data. However, there is a clever trick: since by hypothesis H1+H2+…+Hn = True, and since P(D&True|X) = P(True|D,X) * P(D|X) = 1*P(D|X) = P(D|X) for all D and X, it follows that:

Code:
P(D|E) = P(D(H1+H2+...+Hn)|E) = P(D&H1 + D&H2 + ... + D&Hn|E) = P(D,H1|E) | P(D,H2|E) + ... P(D,Hn|E)

= P(D|H1,E) * P(H1|E) + P(D|H2,E) * P(H2|E) + ... + P(D|Hn,E) * P(Hn|E)

and now we have expressed P(D|E) entirely in terms of things we know. Hence, bayesian theory allows one to revise one’s a priori probabilities P(Hi|E) to include new data “D” into one set of assumptions and empirical experience “E” if one has a statistical model for estimating the likelihood of observing data “D:”

Great. I see. So P(D|E) will be the probability of D given our natural experience. To know that, we need some a priori (except for E) understanding of what’s likely and what’s not. I get that.

Quote
Code:
P(Hi|D,E) = P(D|Hi,E) * P(Hi|E) / (Sum(k=1..n) P(D|Hk,E) * P(Hk|E))

Note that if the a priori probability P(Hi|E) is zero for some specified “i” (i.e., Hi is a priori false), no amount of data can ever budge it from zero (i.e. false), and that if it’s one (i.e. a priori true), no amount of data can ever budge it from one (i.e. true), since if one P(Hi|E) is one, then all the others must be zero, by the axiom Sum(i=1..n) P(Hi|E) == 1. Hence, one must take an “agnostic” attitude to learn from experience, because if one dogmatically rejects a given hypothesis (or blindly accepts it on faith), no amount of experimental evidence to the contrary can ever alter that a priori probability.

Now for the example: Suppose that you are walking down a street in an arid town, and you notice that the sidewalk in front of a house is wet. From prior experience you know that people tend to sprinkle their lawns about three days a week, whereas it only rains once a week, so a priori you expect that P(Sprinkler|Exp) > P(Rain|Exp), with a priori odds of about 3 to 1. Let’s assume for the moment that you can’t think of any third explanation, so your Universe of Discourse will consist of the two propositions “It was raining earlier,” and “The sprinkler was on earlier.” From experience, you know a priori that P(Wet|Sprinkler,Exp) and P(Wet|Rain,Exp) are both close to unity, i.e., if the sprinkler was on, the sidewalk will probably get wet, and if it was raining, the sidewalk will also probably get wet, but if all the information you have is that one given sidewalk in front of one given house is wet, one can’t say much more than P(Sprinkler|Wet,Exp) > P(Rain|Wet,Exp), since people sprinkle more often than it rains.

Now, suppose you look up and down the sidewalk, and notice that the sidewalks in front of all the houses are wet. From experience, you know that rainstorms seldom rain on only one house while avoiding others, so you suspect that it probably rained — but how confident can you be of that conclusion?

We can estimate the relative data likelihoods using the chain-rule for conditional probabilities:

Code:
P(Wet_1 & Wet_2 & ... & Wet_N | X & E) = P(Wet_1 | X & E, Wet_2 & ... & Wet_N) * P(Wet_2 | X & E & Wet_3 & ... & Wet_N) * ... * P(Wet_N | X & E)

where “X” is either “Rain” or “Sprinkler,” and “E” is your experience and assumptions.

First, suppose that it rained — then you know from experience that Wet_1 = Wet_2 = … Wet_N; hence, since P(A&A|X) = P(A|X), P(Wet_1 & Wet_2 & … & Wet_N | Rain, Exp) will not be appreciably different from any individual P(Wet_i | Rain, Exp), which is furthermore close to unity; hence, the data likelihood that if it rained, all the sidewalks will be wet is close to unit, in agreement with commons sense.

By contrast, you know from experience that people decide to water their lawns more or less independently, so P(Wet_i|Sprinkler,Exp,Wet_j) = P(Wet_i|Sprinkler,Exp) for all i != j; hence

Code:
P(Wet_1, Wet_2, ..., Wet_N | Sprinkler, Exp) = P(Wet_1 | Sprinkler, Exp, Wet_2, ..., Wet_N) * P(Wet_2 | Sprinkler, Exp, Wet_3, ..., Wet_N) * ... * P(Wet_N | Sprinkler, Exp)

= P(Wet_1 | Sprinkler, Exp) * P(Wet_2 |  Sprinkler, Exp) * ... * P(Wet_N | Sprinkler, Exp)

~= ( P(Wet | Sprinkler, Exp) )**N

where the last step assumes that most people water their lawns with about the same frequency. It thus follows that, even if  P(Wet | Sprinkler, Exp) is close to unity, it will not take a very large number of houses N before the data likelihood becomes very small — which is consistent with both experience and common sense that it’s unlikely that every resident on the block will water their lawn on the same day (unless it’s extremely hot!).

Plugging these and similar estimates of data-likelihoods for the two hypotheses into Bayes’ Theorem, it’s fairly straightforward to show that, if all the sidewalks are wet, then the a posterior probability for rain becomes quite large, even though the a priori probability of rain was much smaller than for sprinkling.

Conversely, if only one sidewalk is wet and all the others are dry, then sprinkling becomes even likely than rain — although a more careful analysis will convinces you that something odd must be going on, since it’s far more likely that about 3 sidewalks out of 7 would be wet than just one sidewalk out of N.

Finally, if we had included the “catch all” hypothesis that something we haven’t thought of has happened, then in the case that only 1 sidewalk out of N was wet, it would be the “catch-all” that would have gotten the highest posterior probability — even if one had assumed that its a priori probability was small — suggesting that it’s time to re-think your set of hypotheses.

For an elementary introduction to bayesian probability theory, I recommend “Data Analysis: A Bayesian Tutorial,” by D.S. Sivia. for a detailed discussion of both the philosophy and practice of bayesian probabilistic reasoning, I recommend “Probability Theory: The Logic of Science, by E.T. Jaynes. For free repositories of many papers and tutorials online, see http://bayes.wustl.edu/ (which contains the first several chapters of Jaynes’ book and a complete but unpublished draft of an earlier book), and http://www.astro.cornell.edu/staff/loredo/bayes/ which contains tutorials and links to other Bayesian websites.

This is very enlightening. Now I start seeing where “faith” kicks in. Once people are convinced that something is true, nothing will shake that believe.

Okay so we have 2 hypothesis. Hr (for rain) and Hs for sprinkler. Say I see that a lawn is wet. Say I come from middle east where rain comes once a year. So I would believe that sprinkler must be on. Now this is close to “faith”. I already believe, with great prejudice that it ain’t rain.

But then I see all the other houses are wet too.

Now let’s see how things work.

Look I will edit this much latter. I need time to think.

I think for simplicity sake, let’s call the first neighbor Wet0

That way we consider only 2 possibilities, rain, or sprinkler (sprinkler 0)

Also for simplicity sake lets’ call

P(A|B W0E) as Pwe (A|B). Where Pwe is the probability measure when E and W is part of the assumption. That should leave all the clutters out.

I think there should be an easier way to see Pwe(R | W1 W2 W3 W4… WN). I’ll come back to this one.

« Last Edit: October 24, 2010, 10:27:06 PM by genepool » Report to moderator 118.137.142.214

If you’re as rich as Bill Gates, can you make 1000 kids legally?
If you don’t hurt others, why shouldn’t others hurt you?
If you never hurt your enemies, why should they believe you may?
Treat thieves like vermin and they’ll treat us like God, the way we deserve from them!

genepool

Guest
*
Posts: 108

View Profile WWW Email Personal Message (Online)

« Reply #102 on: Today at 07:10:55 AM »
Reply with quoteQuote Modify messageModify Remove messageRemove

There is an easier way to compute this.

Say all the houses are wet.

So what is the probability of raining?

What is the probability that all the houses are wet given rain?

Well here I mean P () to mean Pwe just to make things shorter. And Pwe is actually P(|WE)

P(W1 W2 W3 … WN|R)=1. Tadaaa. If it’s raining then obviously all the grass will be wet.

What is the probability that all the houses are wet given that it’s not raining? Well that’s the probability that all the houses turn their sprinkler at the same time. Say the probability is the same with P(S)

Independence means

P(W1|S)=P(W1) because W1 do not depend on S. It’s also the same with P(S) for simplicity sake. So everybody has the same probability of running a sprinkler.

So P(W1 W2 W3 … WN|S) = P(W1 W2 W3 … WN)=P(S)^N . This get SOOOOO small as N goes large.

Now, what is P(R|W1 W2 W3 … WN)?

Well, it’s P(W1 W2 W3 … WN|R) * P(R)/P(W1 W2 W3 … WN)

Now here is the trick.

P(W1 W2 W3 … WN) is following gdp formula

P(W1 W2 W3 … WN | R) P(R) +  P(W1 W2 W3 … WN | S) P(S)

It’s actually a weighted average formula. Now P(W1 W2 W3 … WN | R) is 1.

So that becomes  P(W1 W2 W3 … WN|R) * P(R)/(P(R)+ P(W1 W2 W3 … WN | S) P(S))

P(W1 W2 W3 … WN | S) is a small number. Let’s call it E. I mean if P(S) is 10 and N is 1000, E is like 10^(-1000). That’s how small it is.

So

P(W1 W2 W3 … WN|R)=P(R)/(P(R)+e)

Simplifying we get

P(W1 W2 W3 … WN|R)=P(R)(1/(1+e/P(R))

What does it mean?

If P(R) is small, say 1 thousandth. Given that e is very small P(W1 W2 W3 … WN|R) will still be close to 1.

That depends on the ratio of (1+e/P(R))

However, if P(R) is exactly \0, then P(R)/(P(R)+e) is 0. The small e, even though is close to 0 is still bigger than 0. So faith becomes some form of bayesian anomaly.

Basically as P(R) began to be equal to e, then P(W1 W2 W3 … WN|R) would go to .5. A few more N and it goes back up to 1 again.

That means if you have a doubt, a little doubt, that P(R) is a possibility, your believe will jump to the normal one as enough evidence shows up. As N grows big, and every houses is wet, quite obviously it’s raining.

However, when you believe that there is no rain, no amount of wet houses will convince you that it’s raining. The small probabilities that all the houses run their sprinkler becomes your “belief”.

Now that explains a lot.

There are thousands of proof that morality comes from the interest of whoever makes morality rather than God. Yet, people that are of faith will simply think that their morality comes from God or some higher reasoning besides profit (including libertarians). The small probabilities that explain that away, then becomes their belief. That explains why Christian believes that the bible is divinely inspired. Some even go all the way believing that the king james translation of the bible is divinely inspired. Then some believe that they are guided by Holy Spirit straight despite the fact that the Holy Spirit do not help them to correctly predict stocks or anything verifiable. Also the fact that most people have different faith and hence can’t all be correct doesn’t deter them from believing that somehow they’re luckier. That’s because that’s the only way their faith can be true.

So is faith useful? For who? If you want to know the truth, then always have some doubt. If  you want to convince people, then teach them to have faith.