Generations

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I am a fan of statistics as well as recursive themes. One of my favorite ideas is a simple reflection of generations. It goes like this..

How many people make up who you are?

Starting with you, ignoring your own offspring.

You are generation zero.

It takes two parents to make up you and ever receding parent requires two so you multiply each generation by two, assuming on average every generation let's say required 30 years, even though on average its around 20 to 25 years.

So if you assume a 30 year generation on average then going back 20 generations it means 1,048,576 people were recursive to result in you.

That is only 600 years given an average of 30 years per generation.

It is amazing to think that within only 20 generations there were over a million people involved in the creation of you. All of their decisions resulted in you as the product.

Think about it. 600 years ago roughly there were a million people who were mingling about which will ultimately result in you six hundred years later. Change any one of those and you wouldn't have occurred.

Now here is why I added this to the philosophy section. You can start to come up with some strange explanations. Such as the theory that you are more than your body. For example the reincarnated soul theory where really all you needed was a new body but ultimately you would have arrived anyways. Not that I believe this but it gets really strange when you start to pick apart that idea. Such as could a past life you, meaning you lived lets say 600 years ago. You could be your (great x 20) grandparent. If it were possible that you could live multiple lives.

It gets even more strange when you start to think about, the person who you chose to procreate with will determine the person who is born 600 years from now. Not only you but a million other people all having children will result in one pinnacle person 600 years from now.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 2,065 • Replies: 23

No top replies

@Krumple,

If I went into a casino in Vegas, put $100 down on the number 17 on a roulette wheel at 35-1, then just let my winnings ride, how much money would I have if number 17 came up 20 times in a row, I wonder?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

If I went into a casino in Vegas, put $100 down on the number 17 on a roulette wheel at 35-1, then just let my winnings ride, how much money would I have if number 17 came up 20 times in a row, I wonder?

Well I have had a run in with this experience. The last time I went to the casino I started at the roulette table and put $50 on black just to kick things off and the dealer made a mistake because it came up red but she paid me out anyways. So I was up 50 but I am a little superstitious so I felt guilty about taking those winnings so I decided to put $100 on the number 23 expecting to lose the 50 I had originally won plus another.

Such as I was gambling and in a turn of what should be considered absolute luck, it landed on 23 BAM! Now I wasn't stupid enough to keep placing the same bet on the same number because I know that statistically the odds are against me however; it is not impossible but highly unlikely.

Your question is actually a simple one. Take your original bet and multiply it by 35 twenty times. You could use algebra but taking a page from the book of Richard Feynman when you understand the maths, algebra is not necessary.

The number is huge. But to write it out it would be 100x35^20. Let's just say you would never have to work again and more than likely the casino wouldn't even be able to pay you out and would have to work out a payment plan.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

I had a great-great-great-grandfather who was a cook in the Union Army and who, one day (actually, it was May 17, 1864), was captured by confederates. They shot him 18 times, and left him for dead in a ditch. Somehow he managed to survive, and 3 years later had a son who was my great-great grandfather.

I shudder every time I think about it. I was this ---><---- close to having lost my life that day.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

..it would be 100x35^20. Let's just say you would never have to work again and more than likely the casino wouldn't even be able to pay you out and would have to work out a payment plan

Cool! Thanks, Kumps, I always wondered about that. How many times would I have to let it ride to come away with $5 million, ya figure? I'm gunna try it.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

Think about it. 600 years ago roughly there were a million people who were mingling about which will ultimately result in you six hundred years later.

Think about it.

600 years ago only 2 people were mingling about, the other 1,048,574 were, by definition, not yet born.

Quote:

luck, it landed on 23 BAM! Now I wasn't stupid enough to keep placing the same bet on the same number because I know that statistically the odds are against me however; it is not impossible but highly unlikely.

The odds of 23 coming up on the next spin are the same as the odds of any other number coming up on the next spin, tell me about how the odds were against you?

3 Replies

@knaivete,

I wonder if there's any species that lives long enough/produces fast enough to have a million descendants all hanging around while he's alive, eh? Think about it---if you could just get every one of them to contribute a mere $1/month to your support, you could blow $1,000,000 a month!

1 Reply

@knaivete,

knaivete wrote:

Quote:
Think about it. 600 years ago roughly there were a million people who were mingling about which will ultimately result in you six hundred years later.

Think about it.

600 years ago only 2 people were mingling about, the other 1,048,574 were, by definition, not yet born.

You are looking at the side of the scale. You are right about the recursive later generations however you have to remember that each parent also has two of their own. So in fact the million are still necessary. Think of it like a tree, each branch in turn has two branches of its own. Until there are over a million branches. It is true that the underline branch needs to exist for the outer branches to exist however when it comes to generations this is not required because it is a backwards tree.

0 Replies

@layman,

I can see your escamotage raking in the bucks, just create the website admitting that you were very popular with the ladies in your younger days and know that all those unknown thousands upon thousands of offspring would like to kick in to see your retirement go nicely.

1 Reply

@knaivete,

knaivete wrote:

The odds of 23 coming up on the next spin are the same as the odds of any other number coming up on the next spin, tell me about how the odds were against you?

Yes the odds are the same but there is another factor involved which the occurrence factor. You have to stack each round upon itself. So although every round has the same odds that one particular number will appear the recurrence of that number does not have the same odds over a span of x rounds.

1 Reply

@knaivete,

Quote:

just create the website...

Great idea! I'm gunna get started on that right NOW.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

...there is another factor involved which the occurrence factor

Anything that can happen once can happen again, I figure. Anything that can happen twice....well, you get the picture--$5 million in no time flat!

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
...there is another factor involved which the occurrence factor

Anything that can happen once can happen again, I figure. Anything that can happen twice....well, you get the picture--$5 million in no time flat!

True.

The occurrence factor is something like this.

You have to take the sum total of numbers for x number of rounds.

In your original question 20 rounds with 35 possible numbers.

So the odds become 1 in 76 billion that the number 17 will come up 20 times in a row.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

So the odds become 1 in 76 billion that the number 17 will come up 20 times in a row.

Well, OK, then! That means I'm gunna collect $76 billion, right!?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
So the odds become 1 in 76 billion that the number 17 will come up 20 times in a row.

Well, OK, then! That means I'm gunna collect $76 billion, right!?

76b * 100 because the original odds are based on 1 not a 10o which was your bet amount.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

76b * 100 because the original odds are based on 1 not a 10o which was your bet amount

You're right! Oooooh, that's really gunna be a shitload, eh!? I wonder how many women that would buy?

I can't wait!

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
76b * 100 because the original odds are based on 1 not a 10o which was your bet amount
You're right! Oooooh, that's really gunna be a shitload, eh!? I wonder how many women that would buy?

I can't wait!

It will only buy one because the others will divorce you for half, and concurrently half ha ha..

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Nobody seems to have covered the fact that populations were much smaller in the past. Your power series does take this into account. It means for example that everybody in Europe has several common ancestors. That might have interesting implications for the concept of "individuality" and/or a reincarnation scenario.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Nobody seems to have covered the fact that populations were much smaller in the past. Your power series does take this into account. It means for example that everybody in Europe has several common ancestors. That might have interesting implications for the concept of "individuality" and/or a reincarnation scenario.

Good point but there is another possible explanation such as beings existing in another dimension or as other types of beings, such as insects or animals. So it doesn't necessarily mean you always incarnate as a human. Perhaps you may have been an alien somewhere else in our universe? Just tossing out ideas, I don't actually believe any of this.

But going back to your population idea. Although populations were smaller would it suggest that there was more infidelity going on at some point?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

(typo....."does NOT take this into account")

Views of "fidelity" like "incest" change historically. Look at polygamy for example. And hypothetically who did Adam and Eve's offspring mate with ?

1 Reply

Generations

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know