Wizards of Odds: The Power of Probability
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лис 2015
- Probability is the backbone of science, but how well do you understand it? Odds are, not as well as you think; it is a surprisingly subtle concept that is often misunderstood, sometimes even by professionals who use it to guide crucial and far-reaching decisions. In this program, experts from technology, physics, medicine, and programming explore the slippery side of probability and the powerful role it plays in modern life.
This program is part of the Big Ideas Series, made possible with support from the John Templeton Foundation.
Original Program Date: May 30, 2015
Host: John Hockenberry
Participants: Robert Green, Leonard Mlodinow, Masoud Mohseni, Alan Peters
Subscribe to our UA-cam Channel for all the latest from WSF.
Visit our Website: www.worldsciencefestival.com/
Like us on Facebook: / worldscience. .
Follow us on twitter: / worldscifest
Thomas Bayes and the history of A.I. 00:05
John Hockenberry's Introduction 5:48
Participant Introductions 8:51
What is the quantum notion of probability? 10:42
Googles dilation refrigerator 18:41
The Monty Hall problem 22:55
The Girl Named Florida problem 31:33
How does probability influence the medical field 40:45
How can people empower themselves with probability 54:08
How machines calculate probability 1:02:16
What is the Robo-naut? 1:12:50
Are humans relying on probability to determine lifestyle? 1:17:40 - Наука та технологія
Hello, UA-camrs. The World Science Festival is looking for enthusiastic translation ambassadors for its UA-cam translation project. To get started, all you need is a Google account.
Check out Wizards of Odds: The Power of Probability to see how the process works: ua-cam.com/users/timedtext_video?v=92A5iDjxgOg&ref=share
To create your translation, just type along with the video and save when done.
Check out the full list of programs that you can contribute to here: ua-cam.com/users/timedtext_cs_panel?c=UCShHFwKyhcDo3g7hr4f1R8A&tab=2
The World Science Festival strives to cultivate a general public that's informed and awed by science. Thanks to your contributions, we can continue to share the wonder of scientific discoveries with the world.
Why don't you hire more diverse people that can do it for you. Just because one has a vagina and have some colour doesn't say anything about your ability
9
What a sheet
Wouldn't the effort be better spent teaching people some common language, English or not, so we get the benefit in the future too. Instead of looking for translators every time something new comes up.
World population 7.8 billion covid 19 deaths 5.30 million ( you have a 1 in 1,560 of dying)
What a treat to see Mlodinow in person! I bought his book, The Drunkard's Walk, in 2013 and ten years later still refer to it frequently. I love it.
However, consider how he frames the Monty Hall problem there: "[U]nderstanding the Monty Hall problem requires no mathematical training. But it does require some careful logical thought" (p. 53). Stated slightly differently, what this means is that Monty Hall is really concerned with thinking like a programmer [or like a 'coder' as the kids would have it nowadays?], which means asking questions such as: "Where is the user now in the notional state machine?" The amount of probability per se is quite minimal in this (and many kindred) "probability" problems, which are often more like ivory tower parlor games.
I think when it comes to luck and "lucky" people, there are instances where we create our own luck, so to speak. I used to sell cars a long time ago. The other salespeople used to always say I was lucky. In fact what it was, was I was willing to talk to people other's were not. Yes in many cases I knew the person couldn't buy right then. But I would do my thing and then just keep them in my bank of possibilities. Later on it always seemed that when I needed a sale the most, one of those "banked" people would come on the lot looking for me and would end up buying a car. It was only because I was willing to talk with them a month or two earlier and they had my card and remembered I was nice to them. The others would bypass people who they felt would not or could not buy immediately because they felt it was wasting valuable selling time. I felt investing in possibilities never hurt and sometimes when I needed them the most, they showed up and made my day. This was basically luck, but luck I created.
But what you're not taking into account are the so many other lucky intances that might have influenced your results: appearance (genetic lotery), educational background etc. So that, supposing all other salespeople were your identical twins and had exactly the same life experiencies and so on, then maybe your approach could be deemed the only success factor at play. But then maybe the others would have behaved the same way as you did hehe
What are they odds the person even bothering to shop around WILL eventually be a buyer? Probably pretty good and you were getting a sales lead by approaching them. Overlooking them for someone who might be more ready to purchase sooner sounds like Bayes tteorem. T-y for your service.
Good call. I got my recent good job because I decided to do my best at my last job. I thought maybe someone from this job I have now would notice me, and they did. Seriously. I liked your idea of creating your own luck.
It comes down to who is willing to "listen". I once entered a dealership with ONE clear and simple wish: I want THIS car and PAY cash.
Oh - part of the rebate is only for military veterans. It was the new car in front of the entrance with a singificant rebate. And I assumed to be done in 10 minutes. First they wasted my time by showing used cars and not listening to repeated NOs. My nose told me: WATCH: All you need is your title document!!!
I was "invited" to sign multiple pages - turned out to be a "credit agreement" with no such indication in the headline.
"Oh no it's not a credit agreement, we just use this form for all transactions", said the manager.
Third, they refused to give me my title document (clearly I was not the owner). I told them go fuck yourself. Then they woke up and returned part of my money. See what I mean with listening?
To tease me further they refused to provide the title and sent ME to DMV!!! DMV still had it as credit purchase, nobody called to change that. That's when I got really angry. You may understand I'm not happy with car sales persons. Finally I learned why they do that: The salesman gets a higher commission if it's NOT a cash sale. I am sure you know that - it's part of each salesman training.
Want to know where: DODGE, JEEP, CHRYSLER on CORTEZ BLVD., Weeky Wachee, FL.
I created my "luck" in life by making people follow my instructions, especially when I am the one who pays. So you are right, people create their own luck - they get fired.
I'd rather be lucky than good
John Hockenberry is my favorite moderator in this series....smart, likable and an excellent listener. He guides the conversations in a really productive and satisfying manner, and has a good sense of humor. Thanks John!
I love this channel... thanks guys.
Absolutely well done and definitely keep it up!!! 👍👍👍👍👍
really enjoyed that, thanks
Thanks for the great panel and the great discussions! Dr. Peters talked about reducing the uncertainty of an autonomous agent regarding its environment by iteratively moving and adapting the prior belief based on the actions taken and the new sensory data. As I heard this perspective, it occurred to me that one could say the uncertainty distribution is like a complicated wave function getting narrower (asymptotically approaching a collapsed state) by the agent’s interactions with the environment, just as it does in quantum mechanics.
Could this make sense? Is this idea discussed anywhere? Any feedback is appreciated.
In terms of quantum mechanics and quantum physics, one thing to keep in mind is that the observer changes the observation by the act of observing the observation. So with that in mind, to collapse a waveform as he described, via the numerous variables that are in play at the time, the observers biased theories influence the outcome and so collapsing might not be the most natural outcome for such things as we expect the waveform to collapse due to prior understanding thru prior observations. Its a constant state of mind over matter in a sense because that is how we observe the results. We create the results thru observing the outcome.
Edward Schrodinger's cat in the box thought experiment is so often misinterpreted, even by brilliant learned people in the field of physics, it boggles the mind. The purpose of him "inventing" it WASN'T to show how, according to quantum physics, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, it was to show the ABSURDITY of using aspects of quantum physics/probability/uncertainty and applying them on non quantum levels. The cat is alive when it is alive, and dead when it is dead, regardless if it is measured/observed or not, and at no point is it both alive and dead.
... and by "learned people in the field" you mean educated people, Mr. Stupid Ass.
I couldn't agree more, your interpretation makes much more sense!
Thank you! And when we learn in this video that even the General Third in Command on the Google Galactic Starship (or Death Star) doesn't get it, it's rather disheartening. And as for the host being able to survive that proverbial Interview at Google (gasp!), well.... (Like many many others, Sabine Hossenfelder has clarified the Schroedinger cat thing, in her book, Lost in Math, 2018, pp. 122-123.)
question please, help
eg = if my laundry ticket should be 2224 and i chose to play 2224 in lotto game, have i decreased my chancres of winning. obviously, my ticket cant influence the drawing, but the odds of the tickets being the same number .....
The first speaker 🔊 definitely needs a equalizer to transmit his correct frequency of communication.
Things are determined, and it's because of this that we see something we like to call probability
How would you know and prove this thesis
Thank you so much for providing still another lens through which we can view our world. I appreciate the work you do to bring science to the lay-nerds such as myself. :-)
Great film thank you. Interesting regards the testing pattern. Those who think they're sharper than everyone else, make of that you will.
About the Monthy hall problem; I always think a good demonstration would be to do it with 100 door, select one, then monthy open 98 .. do you switch ?
yup, the fact he has to avoid the incorrect one means he's inserting information in your favor into the problem, so it can't possibly be an equal choice after that
Thank you!
Great presentation, very fun and informative, made the viewing experience enjoyable
Thanks from Denmark
Thank you for spreading the knowledge !
Awesome use of a "might not be dead, but in a cryo chamber, somewhere..." Frodingrer Frozen Cat...
In decision making, I get the feeling that, based on probability. you Gentlemen, might trust a computer more than a person. The thought that our Courts might be run by cyber Judges is quite horrific.....
Thank you for being so awesomely intuitive (lol) and taking an hour to share your thoughts with us!!!
witj what precision is a dice rolled and used for before u can find out the eqxact probwbility of landing it as you desire
I understand the probability of a sequence occurring. For example with a single die the sequence 5-6 is 1/6 x 1/6.
But what is the probability of the 6 FOLLOWING the 5 AGAIN the NEXT time a 5 is rolled?
For example 5-6-2-1-3-1-4-3--2-5-6…
In other words, what is the probability of 6 following 5 two times in a row? Three times in a row? Four times in a row? With other random numbers rolled in between? Thanks.
calling a test "99.9% accurate" has a definition that is dependent on the population. the chance of the test being correct is different given underlying positivity (sensitivity) or negativity (specificity). You can take a weighted average of these values for a given population to determine the "accuracy." But I think an incorrect assumption from "99.9% accuracy" is that the test has a 99.9% chance of being correct whether or not you have the disease, which of course it isn't.
Excellent
I repeat, I love this guy.
"how much they know to rip you off" earned a like
the positive impact these programs give to the general public would be much more if precise english subtitles can also be provided for obvious reasons.
Also some Chinese languages.
I understand him pretty well... The purple shirt guy.
question regarding the door game - what if I come to the game knowing the odds, and decide to choose door 1 then, when the host suggest to switch, I go for the door No2. But the door No 2 is eliminated by host as empty. Should I stay? Or should I switch? My odds have changed, haven't they? I had 2 guesses instead of 1 and one was eliminated for me, so I'm better of switching, or then it's 50/50?
+Toxis They didn't do a very good job explaining the Monty Hall problem. You should switch, because revealing the other door provided you with new information meaning your first guess has a higher probability of being wrong.
+Toxis When you pick the first time, there is a 1/3 chance it's the right door, and a 2/3 chance its the other two(1/3 + 1/3). Now, when one of the other doors are revealed and is empty, that door is correct 0/3 of the time, and the other door of the ones you didn't initialy pick, is correct 2/3 of the time. Only the removing of one alternative(in this case), changes the probability
You just sniff at cracks in the doors. I can't tell you what goat smells of..!
@@brokkolimannen ttttyy I'm in
Appreciate the honesty on 0:59 😅
So is probability dependable? Or it can change at anytime?
Can somebody give me a summary of what they are talking about? :< I'm interested to learn
John Hockenberrys wheels! :)
35:00 About the probability of a girl named Florida: it seems weird because it's easy to interpret it as "we've picked out a family with at least one girl, and oh by the way the girls name is ". That would be the same as the first problem (1/3). The second problem is the same as "we've picked out a family that has a girl named Florida". And this as they explain is 1/2.
interesting!
Are electrons and other elementry particals truly in a "super position" or are they just moving so fast that we can't determine the actual position because it is beyond our ability to measure.
The slit experiment proves this super position? The action of measurement altered the outcome, but what causal event actually interacted with the particals? What the instrument emiting photons?
I have been an undercover wizard for along time. I have theories tha can change the world. They used me. Programmed as a test subject but wasn't allowed to know but then became aware n started to dig. Research understand and study everything now I can't turn off this remote viewing. I have amassed data n input for along time. I'm remote viewing the future
Cool!
@@ladyfame1430 Exactly my first thought go figure
Kool
Alrighty.
Is the future set in stone or can we change it?
I'm far from convinced the stats example at the beginning of this programme is right. I'll come back to this if I have time, but it looks to me as if they mixing up, and conflating different parts of the stats to arrive at the wrong conclusion.
Mlodinow's presentation helps to stop me from going to sleep.
i like you a LOT, thanks very much
So current
Love to see conditional probability applied to covid - I suspect there are either vastly more or vastly less cases
Virology is all about probability. Educate thyself.
@@billderinbaja3883 relative risk vs absolute risk. Everything is being justified on relative risk it seems.. He has a point.
Vastly more cases and vastly more deaths than we know about.
The probability of me finishing this video is 99.9%
The question about breast cancer regarding “the truth” or accuracy of that statistic and more so the answer of the guest about whether or not it is good of effective to be that vague about that statistic reminded me of a book that Bill Gates had once recommended as a “must read” called How To Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff. This guest basically said it’s ok and even good to “lie with statistics if it gets people to move in a good direction. A direction good for who? Especially when any info can be manipulated to achieve whatever outcome desired by the people divulging that information. Unreal!!!
What if you did the douvle split experiment but made the walls form the splits sensors. Because a wave should be hitting the walls/sensors and going through the slit. Also what if instead of firing electrons, you just released them into a box where all 4 walls are sensors
Hasoud seems sort of miserable when people start clapping D: He's like, "Yeah, clap for me, peasants." John is amazing, though. He has such a strong, uplifting presence.
Yes he does! But his theory is wrong.
Sorry - JOHN is the host - he is right to suspect a "trick". The trick is the FOUR BOXES BB BG GB GG. There can be only three or six. Sorry again - I thought you are talking about the second panel member!
He says, “Yeah…”
So many foreign people don’t know what “he’s like, she’s like, he goes, she went, I was like etc “ when it’s quicker to say : he said.
Don’t be like : there’s nothing wrong with going like that, because I will go: try to put it to the google translate from English to any other language and the computer will go: and I walked yeah….
I don't have my homework because my dog looked at my computer.
you erased my latst input on your pod cast... why and what is your addendum
Great video, one of the best so far on this channel. 52:53 Exactly! Epigenetics might well have a higher impact than some statistical number based on markers. All the things mentioned will make an exact prediction impossible. What we can hope for is a mere restriction in the probabilistically determined range. The last five minutes or so were very good and many things which I agree with were mentioned. But I ask myself the question: Why do I agree with them, what formed my opinion, by what mechanisms? They must have been different, as I have no formal education in any field, so my interaction with the world was different. Also, the last minutes gave a humble insight, but you what they say: we judge others by our own standards. Guess I see and hear what I want to see and hear. Even when it is the words that were not said.
stabiljka
Currently I feel empty, depleted. I cried to times today. I try not to think now. When I thing I just realize how useless I am. And a bad person. I will never be loved, as I am not worthy for any female. And I can even argue that it is a good thing. Shit, now I think again. Yes, it is similar like the French Jacques, but with an i.
whydo you still add decimalls to y9ur loss3s
For Dengue fever the correct result is 999/10998 because the test is wrong in the other direction too (with the same probability) when someone is sick and the test says that he is healthy. Though the difference is tiny.
yup
Probability, someone showing this video in a courtroom. Is 0.01
I asked Google where I'm going for dinner tonight and the response was basically "we"re not getting involved in your marriage issues"
I think that is an intelligent response or let's say intuitive, give you are asking an entity known by the name Google. Although the answer does presuppose that you are married and that you would ask your partner what they wanted to eat. Google also presupposed that you would even care what your partner wanted Given that you don't know, "where you are going", the probability is high that you are willing to go where your partner wants to. In that case your partner might tell you to, "Go Google yourself." This is only in theory.
itw a 2in or loose which number is th3 greatest and haszero loses to its increase or decrease in a way your all aware 2hats the best number to use that3ill never end as a down fall or invrease another in value
Maybe if you fix your spelling and grammatical errors your comments might be comprehensible?
the Quantum guys seems so nervous, that his voice and hands were shaking.
that's part of being Quantum
lol
He's just visualising the uncertainty principle
skip to 17:35
I love that John addressed the fact that there are no women in the group. I envy the next generation that will be sitting in their sofa, just like me, watching an episode of this amazing program but they will be listening to women as well talking about probability.
Why does gender matter? It doesn't. No one should care about gender, color, weight, height, age or any other irrelevant personality trait... just the facts.
question?? just because u dont know something for sure doesnt mean it's only statistical or probable or whatever. i dont get this at all. it's wherever it is whatever it is imo.
p b. Schrodinger and Heisenberg would disagree with you. Things ain't until they are.
I see it like this. She picked door three which has a 1/3 chance of being right. Doors one and two have a collective probability of winning of 2/3. So it's better to switch to door one which has a collective probability of 2/3 of winning.
i must admit that i got lost in most of the practical demonstrations here, but i believe in science and i pray it's probably true :)
One does not "pray" that science is true. One questions and tests what he is uncertain of :)
hahahaha
wtf did i just read????
@@doodelay One apparently does not get a joke.
@@j-r-m7775 but whats the probability that he does get the joke? A million variables at play.. hehe
Driverless cars don't scare me at all. It's when people are driving the cars that it scares me.
good tho!
On the television show "what's happening" the name of the mom was Florida
The guy in the wheelchair sounds a lot like John Lithgow.
no he doesnt
11:47
No one in the audience guested 6 or 8 on the dice toss? I don't think there's many gamblers in the arena. Especially the person that said 12.
Hi opps forgot your name professor Wheels.
Just wondering what's the probability that my internet is good everytime I watch your content
Think about the algorithm of the chart plot
People who are loved and fulfilled don't need substances.
I disagree that ones chances of winning are higher for switching in the monty hall game theory. Regardless of the first event, the outcome is causal and not done at random therefore it can not be treated as an informed observation. If you choose the prize, the door revealed makes no difference, but if you did not choose the prize, the door revealed must be the Prize not. This choice is by design (100% prob) 33% of the time and random choice of remaining doors (50% prob) 67% of the time. So the product of both combined events (event_A x event _B|event_A = 2/3) is equal regardles of the initial choice. The bayesian posterior prob is 50%..2/3 / Sum (2/3,2/3). The contestants choice given event A is not informed because we don't know what path of logic the initial decision follows. The probability from contestants perception is equal. The game becomes an equal odds probability event the moment the second choice is introduced regardless if the initial choice made.
Unless we are saying that the host has truly chosen a door at random. A white noise process. If that's the case, I've proven why the odds would infact be greater.
GDPR after market devices
I swear John Hockenberry sounds like a voice actor from skyrim
OK
About at 49:00 he begins to describe how insurance companies will use this data in charging you your premium for insurance coverage.
Im the next professor x
But what if Monty actually knows behind which door the car is and only opens another door if the candidate chose the door with the car behind it?
I believe in equal rights for Bayes!
Do you believe that conditionally or unconditionally?
Thinking that the coin will eventually come up Tails is what's known as the gambler's fallacy. The odds on the coin toss are 50/50 no matter how many times the coin is tossed.
Trying to explain quantum computing when you have an accent and suffer from glossophobia = Should have invited the other guy.
Who doesn't have some kind of accent? Do you know that people with his accent may watch this?
Probability this user enjoyed this video: 100 per cent
Lost it already.❤️
Luck is a most important thing when dealing with chaos. These people are in fact wotking to develop autonomous leathal weapons platforms for military applications.
Remember where you heard it first. Most of this development is going on at hanscom in massachusetts, and stanford in California. Defense advanced research projects agency. darpa. Been going on for a long time. A necessary thing.
Most reading this have no idea what is going on.
You sound just like Howard Stern. I bet you never heard that before!
I wanna apply my discover into Ai prediction. I have studied pick 3 for many years and I gain some secerets of it.
But mathmatician says lottery can't be predicted. I disagree. it's not that simple either black or white.
predictability and determinism are not one and the same
possibly the worst demonstration of the Monty Hall problem ever.
One night in 2012 I had dream about serious pandemic where government forced people to stay indoors. As we know that happened in 2020 and it still going on. What was the chance for me to predict that?
It's a popular outcome so it could of been pretty likely.
unfortunately not one of my pics are in the motive
I read somewhere once that if you roll 5 dice one million times... you will get 6 6's almost every time. The groups of 6 6's will tend to cluster in a narrow range.
Chaos theory.
Explain?
gogo
So what if the Bayesian has four kids. Two girls, two boys and one of those boys has nondisjunction trisomy 21 born with appear esophageal atresia. Her mother died at 46 years old she had severe diabetes and renal failure she died from heart attack with pneumonia that she couldn't clear up. the Bayesian was 25 years old with three kids. Her grandmother died at 63 from emphysema and she also had leukemia the Bayesian was 14 years old. Her grandfather died at 56 heart attack, two of her favorite uncles died a year apart one was 62 and one was 63. The older uncle died of inoperable brain aneurysm a close-knit family watching her uncle take every breathand be grateful for his family for six months we were looking at a ticking time bomb and the other uncle died from metastatic cancer throughout his entire body. Her older daughter has diabetes.. now wouldn't you think the Bayesian would have extreme anxiety possibly depression and hypothetically if she was a part of some study that she's not aware of ... She could probably have induced psychosis. Don't you think that she would be going crazy on the internet trying to figure out what was going on.. the Bayesian lost everything her son the last to be takena disease that the Bayesian has that she cannot get any help for because Medicaid won't help. The Bayesian is it completely aware of what's going on in her external surroundings. All she does is cry. She wonders if she's ever made a choice by herself or if everything has been strategically placed for what? Oh yeah the first time she ever walked into a casino she won $4,000 first machine. What do you call her luck being born? All maternal btw. I would think that the Bayesian would be extremely depressed and isolated rocking back and forth in a corner for science. She gets no love so sad. She must be a new world orphan. However, the Bayesian always has hope and is always looking to the brighter side.. because that's where she lives she lives on the bright side.
I think people underestimate just how much smarter the smartest ten percent of professionals in STEM are and that they're usually two standard deviations (1SD=15) above the mean IQ of the average person and even just the difference between half of one standard deviation (7.5) is quite a bit smarter than the mean and to be 30 points above the mean usually puts you right on the edge of genius
probability is not plausibility or possibility
This 17 Six maybe
Help please, I can't live without rationality and irrational people drive me crazy!
Took a fun video on learning probabilities and such and turned it into an "epidemiologist" forum...THE WRONG TYPE of "SPEAKERS" here...💯🔊Breast cancer is easily curable with NATURAL remedies... sound, TRUTH, intention, LOVE, 💞🌳🎼✌🏼
100%.. the odds are 100%. In this branch of the universe anyway.
Only to be fair you picked the wrong guy to talk about the double slit experiment as it if it ain't hard enough to understand just saying
ONE SECOND short of 1:23:45!! 🤦🏻♂️
Insurance companies would never rip us off would they? Haaaaa ha haaaaa ha ha ha!!!!