Saturday, May 22, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
i don't believe in probability
i am always getting math problems on standardized tests that look like this:
what is the probability that the arrow will land on either yellow or purple?
or something like that. and i've been puzzling to myself, because i have a tendency to overthink things, what makes the spinner decide to land on yellow or purple? the standardized-test answer to this is just "probability; there is an equal chance that it will land on each color because each color takes up the same amount of space blah blah blah..." but there has to be a *reason* that the arrow lands where it does. we just aren't perceptive enough to figure it out. no, perceptive isn't the right word...i can't think of a word...a word that means, like, the equivalent of how much detail you can see, but in figuring out logical problems. for example, hawks can see all of you individual eyelashes while sitting on the top of a tree. the trouble is, we can't see or calculate or figure out the minute little chain effects and reactions and reasons for the arrow landing on green or red or orange. but there has to be some reason, even if it's a ridiculous ripple effect that was set off when a rat jumped up and down six hundred years ago (and then gave someone the plague. sorry. off topic.) that's where that meteorological idea of the butterfly effect, that the flapping of a butterfly's wings sets off a disturbance that can snowball into the destruction of planets or whatever. we can't possibly understand with our limited brains the exact process, or at least we can't observe it. yet. that's why we have this idea of 'probability', that events occur for random reasons. there are no chances.
what is the probability that the arrow will land on either yellow or purple?
or something like that. and i've been puzzling to myself, because i have a tendency to overthink things, what makes the spinner decide to land on yellow or purple? the standardized-test answer to this is just "probability; there is an equal chance that it will land on each color because each color takes up the same amount of space blah blah blah..." but there has to be a *reason* that the arrow lands where it does. we just aren't perceptive enough to figure it out. no, perceptive isn't the right word...i can't think of a word...a word that means, like, the equivalent of how much detail you can see, but in figuring out logical problems. for example, hawks can see all of you individual eyelashes while sitting on the top of a tree. the trouble is, we can't see or calculate or figure out the minute little chain effects and reactions and reasons for the arrow landing on green or red or orange. but there has to be some reason, even if it's a ridiculous ripple effect that was set off when a rat jumped up and down six hundred years ago (and then gave someone the plague. sorry. off topic.) that's where that meteorological idea of the butterfly effect, that the flapping of a butterfly's wings sets off a disturbance that can snowball into the destruction of planets or whatever. we can't possibly understand with our limited brains the exact process, or at least we can't observe it. yet. that's why we have this idea of 'probability', that events occur for random reasons. there are no chances.
have you ever noticed that little kids, when making games, tend to really emphasize (or make up) differences? like, it's really easy to put half the kids in blue shirts and half the kids in red shirts and make them separate. it's a game. it's actually a conscious decision to separate and divide, etc. at first, kids start making jokes to each other about how the people in the different colored shirts are not as good in some way, then they actually start to believe it. i, having been a small child recently, understand what this feels like. it actually feels like you're playing a pretend game where you don't like the other side, but you eventually start to believe it. i can't work out what darwinian function this instinct has. it's not beneficial to dislike what's different; it's beneficial to dislike what looks dangerous. i guess it's a side effect of the fact that different tribes of people would always be fighting with each other for whatever, so if someone looks or dresses differently, you're probably at war with them. but why did it turn out that way? that's the bit that i don't understand-why humans aren't communist by nature. when we have something and we meet someone else, we don't share it; we snatch it and hug it at our chests. i suppose it just turned out that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
