No Universal Algorithm Regarding Information/Probability Can Exist

David Sklansky · #1 06-09-2007, 05:22 PM

Suppose there was such an algorithm which shows you how to translate your information into a probability. El Diablo studies it and posts that I have a 25% chance to have sex with Brandi. Obviously when I read this I want to prove him wrong. Thereby increasing the chances.

Notice that it isn't necessary to bring someone else into the picture. I could have plugged all the information into the algorithm myself. And become pissed at the answer.

Notice also that it does no good to include into the original infrormation the fact that I would be reading its prediction. That new information would probably adjust the probability prediction but it still can't escape the fact that I have a prediliction to proving algorithms wrong. And even if it knows THAT, its screwed. Sort of like how Cantor's diagonalisation proof that real numbers are uncountable works.

haydenpan · #2 06-09-2007, 06:58 PM

I don't get it, but you're awesome.

chezlaw · #3 06-09-2007, 07:05 PM

Have you disproved determinism or just proved that even if the world is determinisic it can't be predicted?

chez

Duke · #4 06-09-2007, 07:08 PM

What you're saying is equivalent to saying that you can never have perfect information. Your OP doesn't offer anything to distinguish itself from that idea, which is already known.

We're back to you saying that you can't have a universal algorithm, and me saying "sure you can, you just need perfect information." You give your example, and I say that that's exactly the same thing as additional information.

SNOWBALL · #5 06-09-2007, 08:50 PM

This OP reads like the first section of <u>Notes From Undeground</u> by Dostoyevsky.

Kimbell175113 · #6 06-09-2007, 09:26 PM

I'm sure that every time C-3PO told Han Solo the odds of something, that only made the ol' smuggler try harder.

Now you're saying it also made Threepio wrong? Whoa, I don't know if I like this theory.

Metric · #7 06-10-2007, 02:50 AM

I think a concrete realization of this would be a program that downloads all relevant information from the internet, does some clever manipulation, and then predicts the price of stock for the next quarter, with incredible accuracy (or in terms of perfectly accurate probabilities).

It's pretty easy to see that if I sold this program to the general public for $19.99 plus tax, it would become far less useful in a very short period of time. Why? Because stock values would immediately change based on the predictions of the program.

Duke · #8 06-10-2007, 03:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think a concrete realization of this would be a program that downloads all relevant information from the internet, does some clever manipulation, and then predicts the price of stock for the next quarter, with incredible accuracy (or in terms of perfectly accurate probabilities).

It's pretty easy to see that if I sold this program to the general public for $19.99 plus tax, it would become far less useful in a very short period of time. Why? Because stock values would immediately change based on the predictions of the program.

[/ QUOTE ]

So probabilities can change over time based on new information? The hell you say.

I still see this whole "concept" as nothing more than a pseudo-formalization of the idea that it's not really possible to have perfect information. Data about data can be new data as well - there's no practical difference in this context between metadata (David learning about the odds and working to change them) and data (whatever set of information that did not include that that diablo based his original assessment on).

FortunaMaximus · #9 06-10-2007, 03:21 AM

Maxwell's Demon.

Claude Shannon's Demon.

Sklansky's Demoness?

Exploitability is underrated.

Duke · #10 06-10-2007, 03:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think a concrete realization of this would be a program that downloads all relevant information from the internet, does some clever manipulation, and then predicts the price of stock for the next quarter, with incredible accuracy (or in terms of perfectly accurate probabilities).

It's pretty easy to see that if I sold this program to the general public for $19.99 plus tax, it would become far less useful in a very short period of time. Why? Because stock values would immediately change based on the predictions of the program.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also pretty easy to see that you could use that information to create a new program to sell for $29.95 a pop that would take that into consideration. And then $39.95 on that.

Yeah, the pyramid grows forever, but it's still just new information.