Would Law of Averages Work in Determining the Truth?

[Jacob Samuelson]

But, when you take all the humans with one leg and those with no legs the average turns out to be 1.9995 or something like that.

Which we can mathematically determine is two, because no human has 1.9995 legs. they either have 0,1, or 2.

 

[Audie]

I'm going to break the ice for everyone and say I absolutely..... and no one can or will convince me otherwise.
.

How is this not Immutable?

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

The "law of averages" can only determine probability of an outcome within a given set of possibilities. Other than it being an aspect of truth (as all things are) it cannot tell us the truth of anything.

I would say we are given a set of possibilities (churches, religious organizations), however large still reasonably countable, and the probability of truth is the outcome we intend to find. It could help us find the equilibrium of what everyone believes, not just a church or a religion but as an individual belief.

 

[Audie]

Which we can mathematically determine is two, because no human has 1.9995 legs. they either have 0,1, or 2.

There are actual mathematicians here.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

How is this not Immutable?

That was by design, I fully intend as most people to believe the way I believe regardless of what anyone says, but if you put my beliefs in a pot with everyone else, liberal, conservative, orthodox, unorthodox and you would come up with an average of beliefs or ideas I think truth could potentially be far or close away from my perception and I think it would be important to know and how.

 

[Audie]

That was by design, I fully intend as most people to believe the way I believe regardless of what anyone says, but if you put my beliefs in a pot with everyone else, liberal, conservative, orthodox, unorthodox and you would come up with an average of beliefs or ideas I think truth could potentially be far or close away from my perception and I think it would be important to know and how.

That is fairly long but not one word is in response to my question.

 

[Kooky]

Let me know of any potential issues with either the operation or basis of this theory.

Why? You already made it clear that you're not going to change anything about it.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

I'm curious on what your take is on the 'monty hall dilemma,' and 'the linda problem.' So in those examples, are the questions fooling samples of people because they are too psychologically sound, and so does that mean you require questions that work with psychological leading of some kind? In your last paragraph, you talk about a 'better question.' But if you get the answer you want, does the resolution of that answer really meet your requirements, as perhaps people were led to it?

Even in this OP, I think many people were misled to believe that based on my initial statement, that this practice would only be in benefit of me, which in hindsight is counterintuitive. My theory would use raw data not influenced by any one religion rather just personal raw beliefs that everyone has and they may be influenced by their places of worship or not, but then organize them to as means of determining which field or theological or philosophical understandings best apply to a given group or organization. The questions would have to be designed in a way to not influence one persons beliefs structure but to give a value to what is most important or not important. It would theoretically give a basis of a mean faith. Not a nice one but a mean one.

 

[Kooky]

I don't understand your reasoning. You would never ask that question for averages. You would ask how many people believe humans have two legs and then you take the average of that answer. If the average is 2 legs than we must agree that humans have two legs. There is nothing flawed in that.

The flaw in your reasoning is that as a matter of fact, thousands of humans have less than two legs.

 

[Kooky]

Even in this OP, I think many people were misled to believe that based on my initial statement, that this practice would only be in benefit of me, which in hindsight is counterintuitive. My theory would use raw data not influenced by any one religion rather just personal raw beliefs that everyone has and they may be influenced by their places of worship or not, but then organize them to as means of determining which field or theological or philosophical understandings best apply to a given group or organization. The questions would have to be designed in a way to not influence one persons beliefs structure but to give a value to what is most important or not important. It would theoretically give a basis of a mean faith. Not a nice one but a mean one.

How familiar are you with the mathematical discipline of statistics, and its application in various scientific disciplines?

 

[Clara Tea]

I'm going to break the ice for everyone and say I absolutely know that my beliefs are the most correct. This is based on thousands of years of data and hundreds of hours research on my end to come to this determination and no one can or will convince me otherwise.

That being said, How many of us have this statement in mind when talking to others about their beliefs? Does it really get us anywhere with anyone else? So how can we determine using only real facts and not just feelings and interpretations of Scripture or textbooks?

I was introduced a theory in my mind that perhaps there is a numerical way of determining which Faith is absolute truth or at least close enough to absolute.

The Law of Averages came to mind. How I understand the Law of averages is that if we were to take the sum total of every guess that people have about a particular thing and take the average of all of the guesses, the actual answer would eventually appear dependent of course on the sample size.

For example if I were to have a gumball machine filled to the brim and I were to ask 1000 people how many they thought were in there. If I take the average of everyones answers I would probably be off by only 2 or 3 gumballs.

Would there be a way to calculate this as a belief system? Like if I asked a 1000 people, How possible is there to be only one God 0 to 100 percent? I would imagine I would get an array of numerical data and the average would confirm a doctrinal point that belongs to a specific Religious organization or group.

Once you are able to ask every doctrinal point of every belief that exists from as many perspectives possible, you could compare which average coincides closest to a particular faith or belief. The true faith or belief would be the faith or belief that holds strongest to the averages in doctrine.

Although the questions would have to be psychologically diverse enough to allow an array of responses despite someone belonging to a particular faith already. For example, instead of asking how much do you believe in the First Pillar of Islam?, a better question would be Out of every commandment, How important is it to pray five times a day from 1-100. An average Muslim may recognize this as the first pillar question, but may not think it the most important item out of all commandments and therefore even as a Muslim may give a more subjective answer rather than an institutional one.

Theoretically, if the controls were made with psychologically sound questions and were given to an enormous sample, could we determine which faith would be the closest to absolute truth?

Let me know of any potential issues with either the operation or basis of this theory.

"Correctness" is not a popularity contest. Hitler would have won the popularity contest in Nazi Germany, with millions of Germans cheering him on as he tortured to death millions of Jews, handicapped, and Blacks, and invaded peaceful nations. Averaging the ecstatic votes of Nazis would not yield a correct value.

 

[Clara Tea]

The flaw in your reasoning is that as a matter of fact, thousands of humans have less than two legs.

Rounded up.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

That is fairly tong but not one word is in response to my question.

Answer: My mind is never fully fixed, it was satire. Regardless, I don't want this to change people's mind rather provide a truth based on science and mathematics. Whether I stay in my ways or everyone here does too, is not the point of this OP.

 

[Clara Tea]

Can a guess ever be truth?

A liar could tell the truth (not always, of course).

A guess could be the truth. Students pick random answers on scantron tests (maybe always pick choice C), and they will get a few extra points as opposed to getting no credit for not answering.

Random guessing favors casinos, yet jackpots could be rewarding.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

"Correctness" is not a popularity contest. Hitler would have won the popularity contest in Nazi Germany, with millions of Germans cheering him on as he tortured to death millions of Jews, handicapped, and Blacks, and invaded peaceful nations. Averaging the ecstatic votes of Nazis would not yield a correct value.

Who won the war? My argument is The average did.

 

[Clara Tea]

Answer: My mind is never fully fixed, it was satire. Regardless, I don't want this to change people's mind rather provide a truth based on science and mathematics. Whether I stay in my ways or everyone here does too, is not the point of this OP.

Thank you for clarifying. For a minute there, I thought that you had a mind like a steel trap (rusted shut).

It seemed dangerous to be so certain, in a world of violence in which the certain vanquish others.

Perhaps a bit of uncertainty is what keeps us all alive and able to worship as we please?

 

[ChristineM]

A liar could tell the truth (not always, of course).

A guess could be the truth. Students pick random answers on scantron tests (maybe always pick choice C), and they will get a few extra points as opposed to getting no credit for not answering.

Random guessing favors casinos, yet jackpots could be rewarding.

A guess very well mat be the truth, Fate is a fickle god. But i wouldn't rely on it to build the foundations of my house without thougher testing

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

Thank you for clarifying. For a minute there, I thought that you had a mind like a steel trap (rusted shut).

It seemed dangerous to be so certain, in a world of violence in which the certain vanquish others.

Perhaps a bit of uncertainty is what keeps us all alive and able to worship as we please?

I completely agree. I believe we could have all the truth come down from heaven in a tornado of fire and still be able to worship exactly the way we wish because we are the true capitans of our soul. We decide where we want to be. No one or nothing can take that away. Still I think a lot of people would want to know.

 

[Clara Tea]

Who won the war? My argument is The average did.

Soviets sided with Hitler until Hitler attacked them (then they switched sides). Soviets have been a thorn in the side of the US since. The Rosenburgs (executed for giving nuke tech to Soviets--though innocent) had an uncle who gave the nuke secrets. Since then, Soviets have had both a cold war with the US, and physical (but limited) wars in various nations. China helped Soviets in North Korea, North Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos. Often the US fought to a parallel (line of latitude) and fought no further, for fear that it would escalate the war(s), which made a perpetual war to slow the spread of Communism.

Who won the war, you ask? So far, the war isn't really over. Soviets and Chinese have nukes, and the Chinese just fired mach 10 missiles over US ships as a warning to stay away from the China Sea (US only has mach 4). Soviets, responding to email hacking of Podesta (campaign manager of Hillary Clinton), moved their Satan II missiles to their borders as Hillary threatened nuclear war.

Apparently, Hitler's influence has not been purged (yet).

The US barely won WW II. I don't think that eking out a narrow victory counts as justification of average sentiment winning.

As long as the world is not free, the dictators have won.

 

[Clara Tea]

A guess very well math be the truth, Fate is a fickle god. But i wouldn't rely on it to build the foundations of my house without thougher testing

We should buy an empty lot under the unsteady hillside (we might gain a house).

Though it is possible for random guessing to occasionally produce truth, the law of averages doesn't always yield truth.