X-Message-Number: 9099 From: Stephen Bogner <> Subject: Re: Probability Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:15:11 -0700 Greetings; I think that Robert Ettinger is correct in so far as he asserts that it is possible to reasonably estimate outcomes on the basis of prior experience with systems of a similar nature and complexity. I personally have no idea about how I would begin to establish the confidence of such an estimate, unless it was by measuring the variance between the "similar" systems and quantifying the significance of that variation. For example, if a small mammal was restored from suspension, I think that it would be reasonable to assign a "high" or "very high" likelihood (even an actual probability, perhaps) to the statement that a large mammal will also be restored within some specific period of time. I could make this statement even though no large mammal had ever been restored - and I would likely be correct (especially if I chose a long time period). Even though there would be no actual data about large mammal restorations and, strictly and scientific ally speaking, no actual basis for calculating a "probability" for such an event, I could nevertheless make such a statement with a high confidence about its validity. The trick, of course, is that the similarity between the systems means that they are not actually independent in a statistical sense, and I am really making a statement about a class of systems, and not about "large mammals". I think that statements like "the probability of recovery is unknown and unknowable" discount the "system similarity" of those systems that we do know something about, and are unduly pessimistic on that account. Obviously, some systems are more similar than others, and as research progresses we gradually move closer to the system of interest, and can make better and better predictions. However, the subjective nature of the estimates in Mr. Ettinger's ball game example would seem to reduce it from the status of "scientific (ie. reproducible) probability" to "educated guess", some guesses being more educated than others. It is perhaps only of philosophical interest, but I would submit that it may also be possible to have outcomes that transcend "probability", because they are shaped by conscious intervention. Of course, many will argue that consciousness is itself a stochastic phenomenon. ... Stephen Bogner, P.Eng. ... Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9099