556 réponses à ce sujet

[Cypher_CS]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Average? u mean in some cycles the organics defeated the synthetics? albeit against massive odds before the reapers killed everyone off?

No... I mean the definition, lexical or methematical, of Expectancy.
How you calculate Expectancy.
In this case it's:

[Probability(Synthetics killing all Organics) x Value(Synthetics will not create New Organics)] + [P(Synthetics not killing Organics) x V(... well, nothing really)] + [P(Organics killing All Synthetics) x V(Organics Creating New Synthetics - which leads, recursively, to the begining of this equation again)]

So, even if you put miniscule Probability on the first option and any finite probability on the other two options, the sheer Valance (or value) of the outcome of the first option is enough to drive the resulting Expectancy to the worst possible outcome.

Hell, that even without considering the recursive nature of the problem.

Vigilant111 wrote... 
Why do u need to tell me that you study statistics? cos that makes u more right? or somehow more credible cos u SAID so?

Please....

[Cypher_CS]

The Twilight God wrote...

That definition of rebel is meaningless in the context of this discussion and you know it. You KNOW it. To say that any being that disagrees, defends itself or does anything whatsoever that is counter to the desires of its creator is a rebellion on par with an insidious agenda is absurd.

A teen rebels against their parents. So the Catalyst solution would be to kill parent and child? No.  Your generic concept of "rebel" and the subject at hand are incapatible. Even using it in this debate cheapens the Catalyst's position and work counter to your argument. Essentially making the Catalyst out to be a retard wiping out life for the simple reason that life is self determinate. That isn't its reasoning. 

That's entirely not the point.

The point is that it would be enough for just one occurance of a Synthetic going all Manson (kids rebelling on their parents... lethally) on it's creators to end organic life forever.
As someone already wrote - Synthetics will not create new Organics.

[Cypher_CS]

Jayleia wrote...

If rebellion is ethically justifiable in some cases, why not zip through the galaxy every 50k years, find the rebellions that are NOT ethically justified, then zap THOSE synthetics?  Why zap the people that might possibly someday maybe create synthetics that may, possibly fight their creators and might eventually overwhelm all life?

This question has been asked and answered so many times already...

Because organics or even synthetics that would be so scared of such an entity that just swoops in every once in a while would eventually create a synthetics that would outright pulverize the Reapers into oblivion, essentially nullifying that "solution".

Then, who would save those organics?

Jayleia wrote... 
And the ONLY evidence we have of actively malicious AIs are the Zha'til (who were hacked), and the Geth Heretics, (who had a program error).  I repeat, the only malicious AIs that we have any knowledge of were CAUSED by the Reapers.

Irrelevant.

Jayleia wrote... 

rebellion leads to choas...choas will eventually get so big that one or the other side will perish...
if Synthestics perish...Organics will build new Synthetics...If organics perish...Synthethics will not make new organics.

Can you cite proof that it had occurred previously?  Catalyst asserted that it would, but it presented no proof of that.  And how do you know they won't create new organics, or copy/modify organics?  Or that new organics won't arise on other worlds naturally?

However, we have seen no evidence that these probable events cannot be prevented.  Shepard can prevent the Geth/Migrant genocide and usher in an era of cooperation, whether its permanent or temporary, that's something for future generations to decide.  But to announce that it certainly WILL happen, and that there's no way to avoid it, heck, apparently not even the omniscient, omnipresent God knew that Eve would eat the forbidden fruit.  How would a mere AI be able to predict all possible futures?

It's not about predicting. It's about cold uncaring math.
It doesn't have to be true - but for an AI it is the only reality. Hence it must be truth to it.

[Grimwick]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Appeal to Probability

A is possible/ therefore A is absolute

He is invalidated the moments he says "new variables".

No, that's not the case.
It's:
A is Possible.
A has impossible to comeback from consequences.
Therefore, Expectancy dictates that A must never be allowed to happen.

That's still an appeal to probability. You're still basing your argument on the probability of an event occuring as a certainty.

I have used this example many times to show people why this thinking is retarded and I will repeat myself:

Germany invading Europe is possible somewhere in the future (it has happened before).
Europe being invaded has massive consequences (millions/billions of deaths).
This must not be allowed to happen.
Therefore, we nuke Germany.

This kind of logic is so wrong on so many levels and I shudder that people fail to see it for what it is.

[Hendrik.III]

bgroberts wrote...

...And why those who claim he's wrong forgot to pay attention in their university classes.

*huge mofo snip*

I studied history and literature in university, so everything is alright there. Fiction and impossibilities are something I like and can use to express.

You might feel the need to argue about the meaning of meaningless things on a forum of a game, provoking the community and trying to slap aside their arguments with your intelligence and knowledge - which is fine by me - but I'd rather enjoy the rant and musings of the community with their imperfect theories and creative approach.

Logic kills creativity. Just let us be wrong and enjoy it.

Modifié par Hendrik.III, 13 juillet 2012 - 12:45 .

[bgroberts]

RShara wrote...

I'd like to see the OP respond to the last few pages.

Cypher has done a good job of explaining a few things below, particularly:

Cypher_CS wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Appeal to Probability

A is possible/ therefore A is absolute

He is invalidated the moments he says "new variables".

No, that's not the case.
It's:
A is Possible.
A has impossible to comeback from consequences.
Therefore, Expectancy dictates that A must never be allowed to happen.

 
AND:

Cypher_CS wrote...

No, Vigilant, it is you who doesn't understand Statistics.

Go learn about Expectancy and look up Pascal's Wager as an example (note: NOT using the actual Pascal's Wager, but as an example of Expectancy).

Now, my personal response. A lot of people here have really good arguments against the Catalyst, particularly Isousek's discussion of the Catalyst's premises on page seven regarding a misapplication of methodologies. Let me repeat too that I didn't and still don't particularly like the Catalyst in any way--the story could have been written much better. However, I still maintain that too many people are treating the Cataylst as a traditional emotive character and are attributing too many inherently evil or negative traits to it when it should otherwise be considered a reliable arbiter of information.

I keep seeing people attack the Catalyst as unreliable, for a lack of sources, and as the epitome of a fallacious "appeal to authority". I said it before and I'll say it again, this is boiling down to simply arguing that the Catalyst is not a god and since it has no infinite and atemporal view of the universe he cannot derive rational conclusions and make rational choices. But he makes no claims to ominiscience, in the brief way Cypher dicussed expectancy and statistics, the Catalyst is computing his rational decisions and predictions according to his design functions to prevent a future incident which can only be calculated to happen rather than observable. By the time it is observable it is unpreventable.

It is not 100% certain that climate change is real or caused by humans and is preventable but that doesn't prevent us from attempting to enact rational contingency plans to mitigate the effects. We identified trends, applied a variety of methodologies, and calculated end-results based on our best knowledge.

Now, for the sources and the nature of the Catalyst's authority. I'll readily admit that if the Catalyst is a malicious lying entity then my entire argument is moot. I don't assume he is, though. The story seems to present the Catalyst as an entity invested in the facts and who is interested in results based upon its programming. For eons its solution worked until you waltzed up to the Citadel, and it could have allowed you to die next to Anderson. Instead, it freely explains its purpose and origins. I admit it's a very short exposition, but that's just the writing and practical design constraints.

I contend, and my assertions are pinned on the claim, that the Catalyst is a reliable authority. Thus without the game presenting you with three billion pages worth of reports from the Catalyst's C: drive, it imprints an aura of authority on you--even if most, including myself, find it morally repugnant.

My discussion here does not mean that I agree with its solutions nor that I think its solution is the only one available. My only argument was that the Catalyst's logic is defensible and that it is coming from a position of much greater authority on the subject than those who would point to the Geth or EDI as examples that his argument is completely wrong. A thousand lines describing every race that rose and fell over a billion years would be redundant (in the scope of the/a game) when it has already staked its claim.

The beauty is that the Catalyst's argument is meant to be fallible so that you can have hope to intitiate change for the better. It is supposed to contain some fallacies and some disagreeable elements. It freely admits that there are other options and potentially other avenues to solve the problem. That does not undermine his claim that there IS a problem, though. In fact, control and synthesis both completely buy into his argument that there IS a problem that needs to be solved--just not in the way he worked out.

Personally I picked destroy and not because I disagreed with the Catalyst's argument about the dangers of synthetics. I picked it because I want to the galaxy I know to live as it was and I banked on the hope that with the new knowledge gained from the Catalyst that we can reduce the possibility of synthetic danger in the future and beat the odds. In short, I was emotionally gambling on the percentage that the Catalyst as a non-emotional machine was not willing to gamble on.

Modifié par bgroberts, 13 juillet 2012 - 12:52 .

[Vigilant111]

Cypher_CS wrote...

[Probability(Synthetics killing all Organics) x Value(Synthetics will not create New Organics)] + [P(Synthetics not killing Organics) x V(... well, nothing really)] + [P(Organics killing All Synthetics) x V(Organics Creating New Synthetics - which leads, recursively, to the begining of this equation again)]

So, even if you put miniscule Probability on the first option and any finite probability on the other two options, the sheer Valance (or value) of the outcome of the first option is enough to drive the resulting Expectancy to the worst possible outcome.

Hell, that even without considering the recursive nature of the problem.

Probabilities assigned questionable, many variables to account for

U also need to specify which organic species built which synthetic species, not all species built synthetics

Recursion can go both ways, if the organics gain the experience and knowledge of successfully defeating synthetics then odds will become better

You also need to take care of factionism and the fact that some synthetics find appealling to side with the organics

[Cypher_CS]

This kind of Logic is, by definition, NOT wrong.

It is merely morally wrong.

Well, no, wait, it is blatantly wrong cause it would be hard, strictly speaking, for Germany to invade Europe....

But on a serious note - your example is NOT the same as mine.
You are talking about Finite Values. I'm talking about Infinite Values.

Also, I'm talking about an amoral being taking an amoral decision.
That's the major distinction here.

If you want to compare, even morally, then you need to come up with a comparison that would take into account the killing of a Billion to save the continued Existence of Humanity.

Would you Nuke China, if you knew that within an Hour someone in China - with it's over a Billion people - is going to press a button that will release a neutrino radiation or something similar, which would engulf the entire planet and molecularly disrupt all living things (humans, animals, plants) on the planet and within?

[bgroberts]

Love you, Cypher.

[Grimwick]

Cypher_CS wrote...

This kind of Logic is, by definition, NOT wrong.

It is merely morally wrong.

Well, no, wait, it is blatantly wrong cause it would be hard, strictly speaking, for Germany to invade Europe....

But on a serious note - your example is NOT the same as mine.
You are talking about Finite Values. I'm talking about Infinite Values.

No it's wrong. There is no justification to nuke Germany in any logical sense, independent of morals.

Also the idea of infinite values is also irrelevant. It is the same line of reasoning irrespective of the timeline. You could just as easily extend the timeline of Germany to infinity because technically, that's possible. This is why an appeal to probability is INVALID.

Also, I'm talking about an amoral being taking an amoral decision.
That's the major distinction here.

Morals are irrelevant and don't bring them into a logic debate. The logic is unjustified.

If you want to compare, even morally, then you need to come up with a comparison that would take into account the killing of a Billion to save the continued Existence of Humanity.

Not really. I was showing you how the logic works - not making an analogous example. If I wanted to show you an analogous argument you would dismiss the same appeal to probability as logically justified because you are too hooked up on morals and ethics.

Would you Nuke China, if you knew that within an Hour someone in China - with it's over a Billion people - is going to press a button that will release a neutrino radiation or something similar, which would engulf the entire planet and molecularly disrupt all living things (humans, animals, plants) on the planet and within?

Incorrect analogy. The SC doesn't know that synthetics will rebel. He also doesn't know when they will rebel. Your analogy involves exterior knowledge which justifies the decision. It's no longer an appeal to probability and is thus not a fair analogy.

[Cypher_CS]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

[Probability(Synthetics killing all Organics) x Value(Synthetics will not create New Organics)] + [P(Synthetics not killing Organics) x V(... well, nothing really)] + [P(Organics killing All Synthetics) x V(Organics Creating New Synthetics - which leads, recursively, to the begining of this equation again)]

So, even if you put miniscule Probability on the first option and any finite probability on the other two options, the sheer Valance (or value) of the outcome of the first option is enough to drive the resulting Expectancy to the worst possible outcome.

Hell, that even without considering the recursive nature of the problem.

Probabilities assigned questionable, many variables to account for

U also need to specify which organic species built which synthetic species, not all species built synthetics

Recursion can go both ways, if the organics gain the experience and knowledge of successfully defeating synthetics then odds will become better

You also need to take care of factionism and the fact that some synthetics find appealling to side with the organics

...what?

No you don't!

First of all, what assigned probabilities?
How can they be questinable if I didn't actually put any numbers?

Secondly, it doesn't matter which organic built which synthetic.
Nor does it matter which faction a robot might side with.
It's not about a single cycle. It's not about a single decision.
When you play Roulette you may, even a thousand times in a row, win hundreds and thousands of dollars. However, it does NOT change the fact that the game itself is rigged so that the Expectancy of winning at Roullete is always negative to your original wager.
You know that term "the house always wins"? It's not just some made up cliche - it's about Expectancy and the way these games are all rigged. In the long run, the house always wins, because the Expectancy (the weighted average) is always negative to the players' wager.

Thirdly, recursion, by defintion, goes only ONE way.
It has an End Rule. Otherwise, it would be an infinite loop.
The End Rule in this recursion is that first option - Synthetics would not create new Organics. Thus, there would be no more cycles to the recurssive function. It would have reached the end Rule.

So now, pick, which do you prefer?
The Recursive End Rule - no more Organics?
Or an Infinite Loop (which is, basically, what the Catalyst and it's solution is)?

[Cypher_CS]

Grimwick, really?
No acknowledgement even of not being able to invade Europe?
You could have at least made a self derogatory remark, a tiny one...

 

Grimwick wrote... 
Also the idea of infinite values is also irrelevant. It is the same line of reasoning irrespective of the timeline. You could just as easily extend the timeline of Germany to infinity because technically, that's possible. This is why an appeal to probability is INVALID.

....
Wrong Infinites.
It's not the Timeline that's infinite, it's the Valence.
The Probability will always remain finite. Probability can only be a percentage between 0 and 100.
And, as long as it's not, actually, absolute ZERO, then it has a chance of happening.
Then it's a matter of Valence. The value you attribute to that option happening.

 

Grimwick wrote...  

Also, I'm talking about an amoral being taking an amoral decision.
That's the major distinction here.

Morals are irrelevant and don't bring them into a logic debate. The logic is unjustified.

Of course morals are irrelevant.
That's what I said.

Please, it seems that I don't understand your analogy.
Explain to me how the decision NOT to Nuke Germany is NOT morally driven in your example.

[Memnon]

With probability, in order to predict the possibility of something happening you have to observe it happening for a certain amount of time. What is the probability of the LHC destroying the universe? The singularity has not happened, and is therefore impossible to predict - the only way you can predict it is philosophically, not mathematically. There are no known 'variables' to that equation. What is happening is actually worse than Grimwick's Germany analogy - it's as if we decided that we have to nuke ourselves every few thousand years, because we're afraid that aliens will come and wipe us out if we reach a certain technological level

The Catalyst was wrong because he was built by creators who didn't understand probability very well ...

[BDelacroix]

Starting off with an ad hominem is the best way to go.

[Mazebook]

@grimwick the thing with Germany is that it was synthesized...one part with american values and the other part with Russian values. which was in the end the best solution.

[BDelacroix]

nhsknudsen wrote...

All I read is "I believe myself above most of you, so my opinion is the one that matters!"

Well he is a self admitted academician.

[BDelacroix]

maaaze wrote...

@grimwick the thing with Germany is that it was synthesized...one part with american values and the other part with Russian values. which was in the end the best solution.

Because East Germany is alive and well today in its original form.  Wait there was a wall between the two halves.  One half tried to starve out Berlin at one point.  There was no synthesis.

[Vigilant111]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

[Probability(Synthetics killing all Organics) x Value(Synthetics will not create New Organics)] + [P(Synthetics not killing Organics) x V(... well, nothing really)] + [P(Organics killing All Synthetics) x V(Organics Creating New Synthetics - which leads, recursively, to the begining of this equation again)]

So, even if you put miniscule Probability on the first option and any finite probability on the other two options, the sheer Valance (or value) of the outcome of the first option is enough to drive the resulting Expectancy to the worst possible outcome.

Hell, that even without considering the recursive nature of the problem.

Probabilities assigned questionable, many variables to account for

U also need to specify which organic species built which synthetic species, not all species built synthetics

Recursion can go both ways, if the organics gain the experience and knowledge of successfully defeating synthetics then odds will become better

You also need to take care of factionism and the fact that some synthetics find appealling to side with the organics

...what?

No you don't!

First of all, what assigned probabilities?
How can they be questinable if I didn't actually put any numbers?

Secondly, it doesn't matter which organic built which synthetic.
Nor does it matter which faction a robot might side with.
It's not about a single cycle. It's not about a single decision.
When you play Roulette you may, even a thousand times in a row, win hundreds and thousands of dollars. However, it does NOT change the fact that the game itself is rigged so that the Expectancy of winning at Roullete is always negative to your original wager.
You know that term "the house always wins"? It's not just some made up cliche - it's about Expectancy and the way these games are all rigged. In the long run, the house always wins, because the Expectancy (the weighted average) is always negative to the players' wager.

Thirdly, recursion, by defintion, goes only ONE way.
It has an End Rule. Otherwise, it would be an infinite loop.
The End Rule in this recursion is that first option - Synthetics would not create new Organics. Thus, there would be no more cycles to the recurssive function. It would have reached the end Rule.

So now, pick, which do you prefer?
The Recursive End Rule - no more Organics?
Or an Infinite Loop (which is, basically, what the Catalyst and it's solution is)?

NO VALUES ASSIGNED? THEN HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE RIGHT?!

Last time I checked life decisions or matters are not a machine that is rigged, life is arbitrary. Oh so now the synthetics always win, great, thanks for killing all hope

Why can't they "create" new organics? they could simply just leave evolution alone and let life run its course

No, those are YOUR interpretations, don't ask me to choose your options

Modifié par Vigilant111, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:14 .

[Mazebook]

Stornskar wrote...

With probability, in order to predict the possibility of something happening you have to observe it happening for a certain amount of time. What is the probability of the LHC destroying the universe? The singularity has not happened, and is therefore impossible to predict - the only way you can predict it is philosophically, not mathematically. There are no known 'variables' to that equation. What is happening is actually worse than Grimwick's Germany analogy - it's as if we decided that we have to nuke ourselves every few thousand years, because we're afraid that aliens will come and wipe us out if we reach a certain technological level

The Catalyst was wrong because he was built by creators who didn't understand probability very well ...

With probability, in order to predict the possibility of something happening you have to observe it happening for a certain amount of time. 


which is EXACTLY what he did...We tried many solutions...they always ended in conflict.

What is happening is actually worse than Grimwick's Germany analogy - it's as if we decided that we have to nuke ourselves every few thousand years, because we're afraid that aliens will come and wipe us out if we reach a certain technological level 

That analogy makes no sense at all...the analogie would be...because Humans are always in conflict with each other we have to creat a human hive mind that bundeles all thoughts and motivation.

thats the analogy.

Modifié par maaaze, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:13 .

[Grimwick]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Grimwick, really?
No acknowledgement even of not being able to invade Europe?
You could have at least made a self derogatory remark, a tiny one...

What are you harping on about.

Grimwick wrote... 
Also the idea of infinite values is also irrelevant. It is the same line of reasoning irrespective of the timeline. You could just as easily extend the timeline of Germany to infinity because technically, that's possible. This is why an appeal to probability is INVALID.

....
Wrong Infinites.
It's not the Timeline that's infinite, it's the Valence.
The Probability will always remain finite. Probability can only be a percentage between 0 and 100.
And, as long as it's not, actually, absolute ZERO, then it has a chance of happening.
Then it's a matter of Valence. The value you attribute to that option happening.

Two things:

1) Make that disinction the first time. You didn't imply that.
2) Ok so what if we make the premise that the invasion of Europe kills everyone in Europe? Still a valid premise according to the SC's logic.

Grimwick wrote...  

Also, I'm talking about an amoral being taking an amoral decision.
That's the major distinction here.

Morals are irrelevant and don't bring them into a logic debate. The logic is unjustified.

Of course morals are irrelevant.
That's what I said.

You actually said that 'there was a distinction'. If morals are irrelevant to you then why make a 'distinction'.

Please, it seems that I don't understand your analogy.
Explain to me how the decision NOT to Nuke Germany is NOT morally driven in your example.

It is NOT morally driven but it is driven because the justifying logic is fallacious.

An appeal to probability is saying that if something is possible, it will happen in the future. If you try to justify something this way you will find that you can justify anything with a non-zero probability. That simply doesn't make sense and is a pure and simple fallacy. Seriously, look it up.

Germany could equally turn around and say Europe will invade Germany... But that's fallacious too.

Even with the previous examples Europe has (WW1/WW2/Franco-prussian war) it is still fallacious to assume it will happen in the future. The only way to rid yourself of the appeal to probability is to show it is a 100% certainty that will always occur. Unfortunately, in the case of Germany and the SC to do so requires an infinite degree of evidence or otherwise you are making the same fallacy.

Modifié par Grimwick, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:14 .

[Memnon]

maaaze wrote...

which is EXACTLY what he did...We tried many solutions...they always ended in conflict.

Conflict does not equal singularity. Conflict does not equal "synthetics overtaking organics at an evolutionary level." This is the entire point. And for all we know his attempted SOLUTIONS are what sparked the conflicts

Modifié par Stornskar, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:18 .

[Mazebook]

BDelacroix wrote...

maaaze wrote...

@grimwick the thing with Germany is that it was synthesized...one part with american values and the other part with Russian values. which was in the end the best solution.

Because East Germany is alive and well today in its original form.  Wait there was a wall between the two halves.  One half tried to starve out Berlin at one point.  There was no synthesis.

There was a synthesis... It was devided...one part synthesized with America , the other synthesized with Russia... and Russia and America were in conflict...so the two parts acted as proxys.

[Cypher_CS]

Stornskar wrote...

With probability, in order to predict the possibility of something happening you have to observe it happening for a certain amount of time. What is the probability of the LHC destroying the universe? The singularity has not happened, and is therefore impossible to predict - the only way you can predict it is philosophically, not mathematically. There are no known 'variables' to that equation. What is happening is actually worse than Grimwick's Germany analogy - it's as if we decided that we have to nuke ourselves every few thousand years, because we're afraid that aliens will come and wipe us out if we reach a certain technological level

The Catalyst was wrong because he was built by creators who didn't understand probability very well ...

Excuse me?

You don't predict possibility, you assign probability.
You don't need to say this or that will happen, you only need to give probabilities of different eventualities or possibilities.

Can math not predict how many dead people would be in the radius of a 50kiloton atomic explosion?
Do we really need to first see it happen?

Or hell, can we not predict durabilities of cars, ships or plains "simply" by calculating physical strengths and running Monte Carlo simulations and optimizations on how many spare parts we will need to sustain a desired life expectancy?



I have a question for all of you...
Did Openheimer or Einstein or any of those guys really needed the Enola Gay to predict how many casualties would be or what the outcome of the explosion would be?
Or was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki intended, by design, to be a once and for all warning?
Would the Cold War actually remain Cold without Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or would no one be MAD enough not to fire those nuclear missiles?

[Baronesa]

Stornskar wrote...

maaaze wrote...

which is EXACTLY what he did...We tried many solutions...they always ended in conflict.

Conflict does not equal singularity. Conflict does not equal "synthetics overtaking organics at an evolutionary level." This is the entire point. And for all we know his attempted SOLUTIONS are what spurned the conflicts

This argument, this discussion IS a conflict.

Starbrat never defined the extend or nature of the conflicts, it could be as meaningless as disagreement or misunderstandings, or total war.

[Grimwick]

maaaze wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

With probability, in order to predict the possibility of something happening you have to observe it happening for a certain amount of time. What is the probability of the LHC destroying the universe? The singularity has not happened, and is therefore impossible to predict - the only way you can predict it is philosophically, not mathematically. There are no known 'variables' to that equation. What is happening is actually worse than Grimwick's Germany analogy - it's as if we decided that we have to nuke ourselves every few thousand years, because we're afraid that aliens will come and wipe us out if we reach a certain technological level

The Catalyst was wrong because he was built by creators who didn't understand probability very well ...

With probability, in order to predict the possibility of something happening you have to observe it happening for a certain amount of time. 


which is EXACTLY what he did...We tried many solutions...they always ended in conflict.

So think to yourself what evidence the SC has. He has evidence which shows that within the time period he recorded there is a 100% certainty of conflict. Now also think what evidence he has about what will happen next.

He has some evidence that conflict may occur, but he has no evidence to claim a 100% chance of it occuring.

That alone renders your argument invalid.

What is happening is actually worse than Grimwick's Germany analogy - it's as if we decided that we have to nuke ourselves every few thousand years, because we're afraid that aliens will come and wipe us out if we reach a certain technological level 

That analogy makes no sense at all...the analogie would be...because Humans are always in conflict with each other we have to creat a human hive mind that bundeles all thoughts and motivation.

thats the analogy.

The 'analogy' is not an anaolgy of the situation but of the logical reasoning behind the SC.

Please think before you speak.

Also it's funny becuase your 'analogy' completely misses the point and isn't an 'analogy' of the SC.