6 ms·
Probability does not exist in reality as it's open ended. It does however exist in ex a deck of cards and a game that's defined. Probability is often being mi
by ThomPete 4y ago
Probability does not exist in reality as it's open ended.
It does however exist in ex a deck of cards and a game that's defined.
Probability is often being misused to say things about reality though. You see that especially in computer simulation whether used in economics, weather etc.
Different initial conditions are put into the models and simulated. And the probability is calculated based on what the majority of those models say.
But those initial conditions are guesses not actual objective explanations. If they were you only needed to run one simulation rather than a range.
A lot of statistics is pure placebo. Purely retrospective.
In reality it either is or it isn't. If you have good explanations like we do in physics you don't need probability.
David Deutsch IMO has the most sane rebuttal of the probability.
http://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/2014/08/simple-refutation-of-the-bayesian-philosophy-of-science/ http://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/2014/08/simple-refutation-of-...
- fjkdlsjflkds 4y ago> In reality it either is or it isn't. If you have good explanations like we do *in physics you don't need probability*. So... are you saying Statistical Mechanics (to give an example) is not part of Physics? In real life, the amount of information you have (and can have) about a physical process is limited. You can either throw your hands up and say "we can't know for sure", or you can use probabilities to try to get somewhere. How do you define the position of an electron without using probabilities?
- ThomPete 4y agoJust because it's limited doesn't mean I can assign probability to it. As I said. The difference is closed and open systems. No problem with probability of getting a given card based on what have already been dealt in ex a game. The problem arises when it's applied to predicting reality in open ended systems as I said weather, economics, climate etc. and where history is being used as some sort of benchmark of the future. There is no probability whether an astroid is on the path towards earth. It either is or it isn't. In other words. We can either explain or not.
- fjkdlsjflkds 4y agoSo, would you claim that: "There is no probability whether an *electron* is on the path towards earth. It either is or it isn't."? I guess you must know something that Heisenberg didn't. Good luck defining things such as "path" and "position", without using probabilities, for non-macroscopic objects. Also, what is your opinion about the classical "double-slit experiment"? Either a particle passes through a slit, or it passes though the other, right?
- ThomPete 4y agoEverett is your friend
- kgwgk 4y agoThere is no probability whether the next card in the deck is an ace. It either is or it isn't.
- ThomPete 4y agoThere is a probability, it can be described based on what cards have already been dealt. It does not change whether that specific card is an ace or not. So yes we agree.
- kgwgk 4y agoDo we also agree that - even if you don’t - other people are able to conceive a probability that the next card in the deck is an ace, a probability that I was born on a Saturday, a probability that Germany wins the World Cup, etc.?
- ThomPete 4y agoIt's not the discussion whether people can conceive all sorts of things. The discussion is about its relationship to reality.
- kqr 4y ago> In reality it either is or it isn't. If you have good explanations like we do in physics you don't need probability. You mean good explanations and observations? You're absolutely right in that if you are able to observe all the relevant information with no noise, you don't need probability. But there are a lot of systems where you can't noiselessly observe what you want – this is where probability is important.
- ThomPete 4y agoYes probability have its place for ex error correction in closed systems. But you can't predict the future with it. That's what I am trying to get at.
- kqr 4y agoSo what general method of predicting the future are you using that's better? Try to avoid the opt-out "I don't predict the future unless I have perfect explanations of everything" because I know you don't -- no-one does.
- ThomPete 4y agoI use the same one as you. I conjecture based on my ability to explain why I think x will happen or wont happen. No amount of putting percentages on X changes X. It either happens or doesn't.
- kqr 4y agoSo if I asked you whether you found it more likely that you'll ride a helicopter tomorrow, or that a Democrat will be elected president in the next US presidential election, what would be your answer and why?
- ThomPete 4y agoI would say "I don't know" and I would be lying if I said anything else. I can tell you I don't have any plans of going on a helicopter ride tomorrow. I can also tell you that I have no idea if the next president will be democrat. What formula do you propose we use to calculate the probability?
- kgwgk 4y ago> If you have good explanations like we do in physics you don't need probability. Who is we? A lot of physics textbooks have a good amount of probability at their core.
- ThomPete 4y agoYes and most of that is wrong. Physics doesn't deal with probability but with explanations. (Yes also in QM)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kgwgk 4y agoExplain that to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Maybe they can still take back this year’s prize and give it to some physicists who deserve it.
- ThomPete 4y agowhy dont you explain it to me?
- kgwgk 4y agoYou want me to explain what? I don’t see a problem in people who deal with probabilities getting a physics prize.
- ThomPete 4y agoExplain to me how that refutes what I am saying.
- kgwgk 4y agoWhat you're saying is irrefutable in the sense that you can define things as you please! I was pointing out that at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences they are not aware that physics doesn't deal with probability and have given the Nobel Prize in Physics this year to some people who write the kind of books and papers that apparently you consider wrong - full of probabilities of transition, detection and whatnot.
- mturmon 4y agoThat David Deutsch web-link is not saying what you think it's saying.
- ThomPete 4y agoI am not saying what you think i am saying