/kc/ - Krautchan

Highest Serious Discussion Per Post on Endchan

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 100.00 MB

Max files: 4

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


(1.18 MB 1200x900 download.png)
Does Probability Exist? Bernd 04/25/2020 (Sat) 06:01:43 [Preview] No. 36234
Please, help me. After trying too hard to think, I've come to a conclusion that there is no probability.

Lets start with saying that there are events in the universe we dwell in.

An event could be something along the lines of "two galaxies colliding", "a man lighting a cigarette at 3.14PM on the platform 7 in the Paddington station on the 1st of May 2020", "a quark is observed in an experimental quantum computer by a group of scientists examining whether or not the computer works", and so on. I think you get the picture.

We also know that either the universe is deterministic or it isn't. If the universe oscillates randomly between being deterministic or not, then it isn't deterministic.

If the universe is deterministic, each event either happens or it doesn't. Given sufficient knowledge, it can be known for any future event whether it happens or not. Saying an event is probable is equal to saying "I don't know enough."

If the universe isn't deterministic, each event may or may not happen. There is no fact of the matter for any event until it has happened. Saying an event is probable is just a confused way of saying "I have no idea whether or not a particular event happens, but I'm inclined towards liking the idea of saying something about it anyway and shall now proceed by claiming the event probable with the probability P.”

Either way, an event is not probable. In a deterministic universe it's at least in principle possible to know whether an event happens or not. In a non-deterministic universe it's just anyone's guess whether or not an event happens.

At best probability is then something like "an event seems probable to a person who lacks sufficient knowledge and/or is deluded enough to think his knowledge allows him to make reliable guesses of future events when in fact his guesses will be correct only 50% of the time given a sufficient number of guess-event pairs".

I'm not especially satisfied with my thinking how. What and how did I think wrong?


Bernd 04/25/2020 (Sat) 07:24:47 [Preview] No.36237 del
>Does Probability Exist?
Yes.
>either the universe is deterministic or it isn'
There are things that deterministic. Otherwise computers couldn't be exist.
And there are things that aren't deterministic, like rolling a dice. Tho in this case we can calculate probabilities.
There are "constants" and moving parts. Liek if you were born you will die - this is a constant. But how your life turns out it's a moving part.
The universe being deterministic or not is not an either or, but a both.


Bernd 04/25/2020 (Sat) 08:36:18 [Preview] No.36239 del
>>36234
>Given sufficient knowledge, it can be known for any future event whether it happens or not.
The problem is, you are mentally ill. You are capable of imagining certain abstract concepts which cannot exist in this universe or if they can, not in any way applicable to you. I refer you to Zenos paradoxes, you are probably familiar but I will talk one of them out:

>That which is in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal.
If you must walk a path, you must reach half way. From that point to the end, you must reach half way again. Then half way again ad infinitum. In other words, your broken perception of reality means you cannot conceivably walk a garden path, let alone predict the future.

Essentially, the universe is in a constant state of motion and the only time is the present. There is no past or future and there is also no 'now' as a motionless state from which past or future can be observed and paths of motion predicted. That's not to say the universe isn't deterministic, it's just you have no vantage point outside of it to observe what you are imagining.

>At best probability is then something like "an event seems probable to a person who lacks sufficient knowledge and/or is deluded enough to think his knowledge allows him to make reliable guesses of future events when in fact his guesses will be correct only 50% of the time given a sufficient number of guess-event pairs".
I once had a very interesting conversation with a statistician. Do you know how rare a 50% probability is? Extremely fucking rare, like to the point where it's basically never naturally observed. Try flipping a coin 10 times, you will very unlikely get a 50% split. In fact, the more you flip the coin the closer you get to a 70 30 split either way. The universe is observably unfair in this way.

I suppose to try and answer your question, from my understanding, probability exists but it's a matter of perspective. Some constants can be observed but again from a limited perspective which might not be so constant but that's beyond our comprehension.

I suppose put simply, don't break your brain over it.


Bernd 04/25/2020 (Sat) 08:54:53 [Preview] No.36240 del
>>36239
Maybe put a simpler way, the universe or time from our perspective cannot be observed, only experienced.


Bernd 04/25/2020 (Sat) 09:25:34 [Preview] No.36242 del
>>36237

> And there are things that aren't deterministic, like rolling a dice.

But this is the gist of the problem: That is a prime example of determinism.

Imagine a dice tossing machine which contains a cubical tossing area with a die in it. The machine has also a small motor in it and a button on its side. Whenever the button is pressed and the machine is connected to the mains, it'll shake the cube containing the die.

Now, isn't it so that if an observer meticulous enough first determines the relative positions of each atom in the machine and she knows the exact amount of current flowing to the small motor after the button is pressed, she can also predict with absolute certainty, relying on nothing but the laws of physics, on which side the die will land?

Because if she can't, then the laws of physics don't apply and indeed the universe is not deterministic. And, I think you'd agree that the laws of physics do apply.


Bernd 04/25/2020 (Sat) 09:27:42 [Preview] No.36243 del
>>36239

> Try flipping a coin 10 times

But if you flip a fair coin 10,000,000 times, shouldn't it be quite a surprise to find the results wandering anywhere but close to 50%?


Bernd 04/25/2020 (Sat) 13:00:37 [Preview] No.36247 del
>>36242
Are you reading the Foundation by Asimov for the first time?


Bernd 04/25/2020 (Sat) 14:36:01 [Preview] No.36253 del
(8.29 KB 462x361 coin throw graph.png)
>>36243
It'd probably look like this.


Bernd 04/25/2020 (Sat) 16:19:23 [Preview] No.36256 del
I think your problem is also epistemological. Can we gain true knowledge, can we learn in any way The Truth, can we know everything?


Bernd 04/25/2020 (Sat) 16:51:18 [Preview] No.36257 del
>>36237
Computers are deterministic too. Every single program, action, or instance of (use of a computer) has been determined.
So, everything is deterministic. Because God is omniscient (knowing everything), nothing is "probable" as God knows what exactly will happen. For us, some things are probable because we don't know everything, we are just men.
Only through a weak worldview can "probability" exist.


Bernd 04/25/2020 (Sat) 17:27:17 [Preview] No.36260 del
>>36257
>Computers are deterministic too.
Ofc. That's what I wrote. Determinism have to exist since computers are deterministic. And since determinism exists computers can exist. If there wasn't determinism, computers couldn't work. One of their main property is that they are deterministic.


Bernd 04/26/2020 (Sun) 06:19:26 [Preview] No.36276 del
>>36256

Well, kind of. But I'd like to rule out the epistemological side of the problem by simply claiming that the universe is either deterministic or it isn't regardless of whether someone knows that, is able to know that, or not.


Bernd 04/26/2020 (Sun) 06:37:39 [Preview] No.36278 del
>>36276
I meant...
On one hand if you could acquire knowledge so deep to use it in the predictoin of the outcome of a dice roll.
On the other with such knowledge a dice could be made so perfect (and a surface to roll on, etc.) that the outcome of the roll couldn't be predicted with any kind of knowledge.
Yeah it's the unmovable object, unstoppable force, etc paradox.



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply