Oh, it looks exactly like the kind of reference that everyone here seems to be aware of and I am not. ^^ I will be reading that. Thanks a lot.

Ok. Thanks. So:

• p(bus has number ≤ 1546 | city has 2992 buses) = 0.5

implies

• p(city has < 2992 buses | bus has number 1546) = 0.5

?

If that is your reasoning, I do not see how you go from the former to the latter.

Is it a general fact that:

• p(bus has number ≤ n | city has N buses) = p(city has < N buses | bus has number n)

or does it work only for 0.5?

In that case, probability is n/N, and if we look for 0.5 probability, we get 0.5 = 1546/N which gives us N = 2992 with 0.5 probability.

Again, I am confused.

From what you write I understand this :

• p(bus has number ≤ n | city has N buses) = n/N
• so p(bus has number ≤ 1546 | city has N buses) = 0.5 iff. N = 2992
• therefore p(city has 2992 buses | bus has number 1546) = 0.5

But from your other comment, it looks like that last step and conclusion is not what you mean. Can you confirm that?

Or do you mean :

• therefore p(city has ≤ 2992 buses | bus has number 1546) = 0.5 ?

Or something else entirely?

Thank you. It is clearer that way. ^^ I feel like it would be less confusing (more true?) to write “below 30” rather than “30” in the sentence I quoted. ;-)

I looked at my clock and it was 15:14. It gives a 50 percent probability that the total number of hours in a day is 30

I am curious how you got that number.

It seems to me that, for any reasonnable prior, it it more probable that there is 16 hours in a day rather than 30.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your “50 percent probability”?

As a wise man once said

This link is dead.

For anyone interested, if I understand correctly, this was supposed to point to a review by E.Y. of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose. A copy of that review can be found here : https://whatshouldiread.fandom.com/wiki/Shadows_of_the_Mind.

Tread cautiously when you hear someone arguing against "realism"

This link appears to be dead.
I guess that it was supposed to point to this text :
https://www.yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth

(or : https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/X3HpE8tMXz4m4w6Rz/the-simple-truth )

real situation you could find a particle in

This link is dead.
To the best of my understanding, this is a working link to the same comic strip:
https://dresdencodak.com/2005/06/14/lil-werner/ 

But this is not the narrator speaking. It is written on a picket sign by a protester. ;-) I think that a lot of english-speaking people would make that kind of mistake, which makes that picket sign quite believable, in my opinion.

three million views

It looks like this link is dead.

Do you have a correct link? Or the title of the video?

I would be very interested in watching it (if I have not already).