This is a bit of brain food for all the John Nashes out there. The guy in the video is amazingly talented. I say this with great assertion because he is able to see a very difficult (probably made difficult) in the very bright light of common sense. He has a very potent argument when it comes to the problems and speculations surrounding global warming and to do true justice to his efforts all you have to do is watch the video. Ahem one more thing I think I have a knack of bring in long videos and this one clocks in around 9 minutes. But isn't the life of 6 billion people on our Earth more valuable than those 9 minutes? You decide!
Update: I wanted to post this on Biggle but accidentally I posted in on my personal blog first, so just in case anyone finds it on the other blog then its not a case of plagiarism. FYI
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hey Vikram , this posts a very interesting probability question with all the four choices.
To bring my basics Random signals, don't we still have an equal probability of succeeding as to failing.
His biasing towards (2,2) leads to an unfair experiment which distorts the hypothesis.
When we say an experiment is false, it does not mean it has got negative consequences.
The only he can prove his hypothesis, is by taking individual factors,laying out a cause effect relationship and assigning data based weights to these factors.
He is biased in his argument, he also needs to remember that humans can never take a 0 ,1 stance, thats what machines are for.
Check this article about uncertainties and certainties global warming. Its bit of a technical drag, but if you are interested you wont see that.
I am still looking for probabilistic model for global warming.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/278/5342/1416
Post a Comment