There are statistics predicting how likely you are to buy something. But is there a public system that will predict war?

I mean we have sports game stats, but what if we made an open source software to predict wars? Would it cause or prevent wars?

But if we predicted a country going to war we would know there motivations.

So if we gave each country a rating of their differences such as military power, economic stability, and strategic options could we influence the world to peacefully handle disputes?

The betting markets offer useful crowd sourced insights into questions like this

Just like a sports game it has to play out instead of just paper.

But instead of fake news the computer program would find the real reasons of the conflict.

It would answer the question of who is to blame for the war in Gaza. Depending on the news source you watch it looks like the people are intentionally starved.

But if we knew the true reasons and facts who would we support?

1 hour ago, iNow said:

The betting markets offer useful crowd sourced insights into questions like this

If the betting markets odds vary with the amount wagered, the insight is into peoples’ perceptions and not the actual probability.

5 hours ago, Trurl said:

There are statistics predicting how likely you are to buy something. But is there a public system that will predict war?

I mean we have sports game stats, but what if we made an open source software to predict wars? Would it cause or prevent wars?

But if we predicted a country going to war we would know there motivations.

So if we gave each country a rating of their differences such as military power, economic stability, and strategic options could we influence the world to peacefully handle disputes?

There are two sorts of mathematics available and both are used by the military for the purpose of predicting the likelyhood of not only war but also the outcome of various responses.

The mathematics of game theory.

The mathematics of Bayesian statistics.

In respect of your question about Gaza, that war has been going on for nearly 3 thousand years.

At one time Israel was not only at war with the then people of Gaza (part of Philistia) but also with itself so that it was divided into two kingdoms. Israel and Judea.

6 hours ago, Trurl said:

Just like a sports game it has to play out instead of just paper.

But instead of fake news the computer program would find the real reasons of the conflict.

It would answer the question of who is to blame for the war in Gaza. Depending on the news source you watch it looks like the people are intentionally starved.

But if we knew the true reasons and facts who would we support?

Computer programs don't find things out. They manipulate data they have been given by human beings. Though I suppose they might find connections between apparently disparate data that people have not noticed. I should have thought that in human affairs like the start of wars, which depend so much on intangibles like psychology, computers would struggle to predict odds accurately.

As for assigning "blame" for a conflict, that is an entirely different question, one of morality and law.

Edited August 13Aug 13 by exchemist

Two of the most predictable wars in world history have resulted in World Wars.
Both acted like stacks of dominoes; once set in motion, there was only one inevitable outcome.
The worst part, for Germany, was that about a year into either war, they knew that loss was unavoidable.

Knowing what was coming didn't stop them.
Knowing the outcome didn't stop them.

9 hours ago, Trurl said:

There are statistics predicting how likely you are to buy something. But is there a public system that will predict war?

I mean we have sports game stats, but what if we made an open source software to predict wars? Would it cause or prevent wars?

But if we predicted a country going to war we would know there motivations.

So if we gave each country a rating of their differences such as military power, economic stability, and strategic options could we influence the world to peacefully handle disputes?

If only we could learn from history instead...

No one really wins...

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Two of the most predictable wars in world history have resulted in World Wars.
Both acted like stacks of dominoes; once set in motion, there was only one inevitable outcome.
The worst part, for Germany, was that about a year into either war, they knew that loss was unavoidable.

Knowing what was coming didn't stop them.
Knowing the outcome didn't stop them.

I rather think both the claims about WWI and WWII lie on very shaky ground indeed.

But I do not want to stray very far from the OP.

I have a follow up question. Are such systems that the U.S. is going to spend a trillion dollars on AI?

It is all the technology plus power plants have to be built to power it all.

10 billion to feed kids or 500 million for creative property destroying machines?

I would rather pour money into Artemis or Mars than a computer which I feel is built for destruction.

Agree or Disagree

The whole point of AI is to develop a superior intellect.

1 hour ago, Trurl said:

I have a follow up question. Are such systems that the U.S. is going to spend a trillion dollars on AI?

It is all the technology plus power plants have to be built to power it all.

10 billion to feed kids or 500 million for creative property destroying machines?

I would rather pour money into Artemis or Mars than a computer which I feel is built for destruction.

Agree or Disagree

The whole point of AI is to develop a superior intellect.

Your question is not a complete sentence. Typo? Can you try again?

8 hours ago, Trurl said:

The whole point of AI is to develop a superior intellect.

Is it:

The YouTube video you linked (VPJTE640ogg) is likely a specific instance of a discussion or analysis related to arguments, potentially focusing on critical thinking or the presentation of claims. Based on search results, it may refer to the work of Philip Turetzky, author of "The Elements of Arguments". 

While a direct summary of the specific video's arguments isn't available, here's a likely overview of themes based on related information:

• Focus on Logic and Critical Thinking: The video probably explores core principles of logic and critical thinking, including how to identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments.

• Structure of Arguments: It likely covers the components of an argument, such as premises and conclusions, and how they relate to support a specific claim.

• Informal Fallacies: A significant part of the discussion could involve identifying and avoiding common errors in reasoning, known as informal fallacies.

• Distinctions in Argumentation: The video may clarify important distinctions within argumentation, such as the difference between:

  • Propositions and propositional attitudes

  • Propositions and states of affairs

  • Logic, rhetoric, and psychology 

In short, the video probably provides a foundation for understanding the mechanics of arguments and for assessing their strength and validity. To get a precise summary, watching the video is necessary.

Mandatory 52 minute video removed by moderator

Edited August 15Aug 15 by Phi for All
Rule 2.7

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

To get a precise summary, watching the video is necessary.

Moderator Note

You know better than this. If you want someone to understand something in a discussion, use your own words to describe it. Do your own summary, and don't ever do this video BS again.

20 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Moderator Note

You know better than this. If you want someone to understand something in a discussion, use your own words to describe it. Do your own summary, and don't ever do this video BS again.

My apologies, it was an attempt to show how AI couldn't be an intellect.

On 8/13/2025 at 5:08 AM, Trurl said:

There are statistics predicting how likely you are to buy something.

But these statistics are based on reliable, objective factors that can be measured. Whether someone buys bread, soap, and shampoo can be calculated based on how quickly they consume these consumable goods. Mainly, it is an extrapolation based on historical data.

Wars depend on unpredictable factors. You have the whim of some autocrat, a sudden unexpected incident that sets off a snowball effect, you have a war that is over, but in reality for some it is not over yet, it has only been frozen in time, and they are just waiting to unfreeze it... etc., etc. These are unmeasurable factors.

Edited August 16Aug 16 by Sensei

8 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Wars depend on unpredictable factors.

No it doesn't, if I attack you, then we're at war; or at least in a fight...

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

But these statistics are based on reliable, objective factors that can be measured. Whether someone buys bread, soap, and shampoo can be calculated based on how quickly they consume these consumable goods. Mainly, it is an extrapolation based on historical data.

Wars depend on unpredictable factors. You have the whim of some autocrat, a sudden unexpected incident that sets off a snowball effect, you have a war that is over, but in reality for some it is not over yet, it has only been frozen in time, and they are just waiting to unfreeze it... etc., etc. These are unmeasurable factors.

Yes I agree that some stats are reliable, but I think Trurl may have been referring to Vance Packard (The Hidden Persuaders, The Status Seekers and The Pyramid Climbers).

So yes consumer behaviour is significantly more predictable than wars.

Nevertheless some wars are more predictable or perhaps as MigL put it inevitable such as the 'War of Jenkin's Ear', the Punic Wars are examples.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Nevertheless some wars are more predictable or perhaps as MigL put it inevitable such as the 'War of Jenkin's Ear', the Punic Wars are examples.

In countries where there is no authoritarian ruler or dictator who makes all the decisions, it is much more difficult to start a war, because such a democratic politician must somehow “encourage” his supporters and, worse still, his political opponents. So this process takes time, and it is visible in the public forum before military action begins. But I don't think it has anything to do with statistics, does it?

In countries where there is succession to the royal or princely crown, problems can be expected when there are too many candidates for the crown. The candidates are also rulers in other countries and have sufficient support in the armed forces to initiate military action on foreign territory. But nowadays, there are few countries that are exposed to this risk.

Edited August 16Aug 16 by Sensei

9 minutes ago, Sensei said:

In countries where there is no authoritarian ruler or dictator who makes all the decisions, it is much more difficult to start a war, because such a democratic politician must somehow “encourage” his supporters and, worse still, his political opponents. So this process takes time, and it is visible in the public forum before military action begins. But I don't think it has anything to do with statistics, does it?

The definition of Democracy has changed over time.

At the time of the Punic wars, Rome was a democratic republic by their definition.

When the US started its war of independance it was one democracy against another, yet both had slaves.

On 8/16/2025 at 3:56 PM, Sensei said:

In countries where there is no authoritarian ruler or dictator who makes all the decisions, it is much more difficult to start a war, because such a democratic politician must somehow “encourage” his supporters and, worse still, his political opponents. So this process takes time, and it is visible in the public forum before military action begins. But I don't think it has anything to do with statistics, does it?

What better way to start a war, than to point the finger at those that have no authority or political expression???