2 ms·

A lot of what probability is, is the extent of lack of information. The Monty Hall Problem is a great example of this. So I would say the more fundamental thi

A lot of what probability is, is the extent of lack of information. The Monty Hall Problem is a great example of this. So I would say the more fundamental thing might be information theory. This my layman view. Not an expert.

lupire 4y ago
Probability is weight/count of cases of interest divided by weight/count of all possible cases.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  I just rolled a 6 sided die here and looked at the outcome. For you the probability it is a 6 is 1/6. For me is isn’t 1/6. Same object!
  - deltasevennine 4y ago
    For you it isn't 1/6 but for him it is. From your perspective can you derive from the knowledge you have why that for him the probability is 1/6? And I mean derive as in derive the mathematical probability from all your knowledge about physics and the dice to explain why the lack of knowledge appears to him as a probability. This is the essence of my question. We assume it. Probability is taken to be true for no reason, similar to how we just assume logic to be true.
    - quickthrower2 4y ago
      Probability is an abstract concept so if he has a really good model of the universe there is no reason he couldn’t have better information. We don’t really know if “god plays dice” so to speak. We probably will never fully understand the underlying fabric of the universe even with lots of theories and experiments. It is like we get to run valgrind on the program but never see the source code.
      - deltasevennine 4y ago
        > Probability is an abstract concept so if he has a really good model of the universe there is no reason he couldn’t have better information. It's not about reasoning. Sure he could have better information but this isn't the point. It's all about WHY probability works. Why are these laws suddenly obeyed when there's a lack of information? Do we assume it's fundamental? Or can the laws of probability be derived from deeper axioms, like logic.
- mturmon 4y ago
  Perhaps you're just kidding around, but of course that's not good enough for a definition. It doesn't handle continuous random quantities. It doesn't even handle situations with a discrete outcome but where counting the possible cases isn't well-defined (Buffon's needle being one, but an even better one being the chance of a tossed thumbtack landing point-up). It also doesn't handle cases where symmetry or physics can give the answer, but you can't count cases because they aren't finite or aren't necessarily a-priori equiprobable.

lupire 4y ago

Probability is weight/count of cases of interest divided by weight/count of all possible cases.

quickthrower2 4y ago
I just rolled a 6 sided die here and looked at the outcome. For you the probability it is a 6 is 1/6. For me is isn’t 1/6. Same object!
- deltasevennine 4y ago
  For you it isn't 1/6 but for him it is. From your perspective can you derive from the knowledge you have why that for him the probability is 1/6? And I mean derive as in derive the mathematical probability from all your knowledge about physics and the dice to explain why the lack of knowledge appears to him as a probability. This is the essence of my question. We assume it. Probability is taken to be true for no reason, similar to how we just assume logic to be true.
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    Probability is an abstract concept so if he has a really good model of the universe there is no reason he couldn’t have better information. We don’t really know if “god plays dice” so to speak. We probably will never fully understand the underlying fabric of the universe even with lots of theories and experiments. It is like we get to run valgrind on the program but never see the source code.
    - deltasevennine 4y ago
      > Probability is an abstract concept so if he has a really good model of the universe there is no reason he couldn’t have better information. It's not about reasoning. Sure he could have better information but this isn't the point. It's all about WHY probability works. Why are these laws suddenly obeyed when there's a lack of information? Do we assume it's fundamental? Or can the laws of probability be derived from deeper axioms, like logic.
mturmon 4y ago
Perhaps you're just kidding around, but of course that's not good enough for a definition. It doesn't handle continuous random quantities. It doesn't even handle situations with a discrete outcome but where counting the possible cases isn't well-defined (Buffon's needle being one, but an even better one being the chance of a tossed thumbtack landing point-up). It also doesn't handle cases where symmetry or physics can give the answer, but you can't count cases because they aren't finite or aren't necessarily a-priori equiprobable.