Let us suppose
that the probability of Wendy's existence after a disaster is P1; the probability of
disaster occurrence is P2;
the probability of Wendy's existence is P3;
the probability of disaster occurring because Wendy is present is P4.
Among them, according to the plot of the movie, each occurrence of a disaster is related to Wendy, so P1=1; the probability of disaster occurrence P2 should be given by the Statistics Bureau and set as known; the probability of Wendy's existence is certain before she dies It is 1, that is, P3=1;
according to the Bayesian formula:
P4=P1*P2/P3
, that is, P4=P2;
this means that if Wendy is present, disasters will occur, and disasters will still occur if Wendy is not. This derivation process uses objective facts and movie plots, and objective facts are immutable, so what the movie tells us is: Death is an objective law.
Once Wendy and Kevin tried to prevent the disaster, but they ignored the objective law of the appearance of death, and overemphasized the subjective initiative. Countless history tells us that the reckless Great Leap Forward will lead to disastrous consequences, even if there is a temporary climax. In the end, the drawbacks will still be exposed, just like a mouse that suddenly jumps and changes after gnawing on the ice-cream car track.
In the final analysis, they blame themselves for bringing disasters because they don’t understand the theory of probability, and they commit the mistake of left-leaning aggressiveism because they don’t understand the principles of Marxist philosophy.
It's terrible to have culture! But what can I say to a group of post-90s who have just graduated from high school?
Alas, a growing sigh.
View more about Final Destination 3 reviews
