This is peculiar. Because the probability of reality of O is a subjective probability, therefore the mathematician has to consider the reality probability independent probability from each other.
Let me illustrate. Given a coin of heads and tails on the sides. Given that the coin is tossed, the probability of heads or tails in one toss are equal, at 50% each.
Now. X, Y, and Z each toss the coin once. You say that the probabily of tail is 12.5%, and the probability of heads is also 12.5% of any given ONE toss. That is simply absurd. The probability that the coin will land on heads (or else tails) in each one of the three times of the tosses, is 50% times three tosses, and averaged over three tosses.
If the observation decided to be true is 50-50 by each of X, Y, and Z, then the observation's probability is (50%+50%+50%)/3, just like in the coin toss. — god must be atheist
There are two layers to observational data. First concerns its reality and the second concerns its correctness. For both, we need multiple observers — TheMadFool
The probability calculations are the same for both and the error commited is identical in both cases. — TheMadFool
So, if I'm hallucinating myself conducting a high-precision experiment with hallucinated equipment and hallucinated colleagues, I can publish my findings in a scientific journal? — TheMadFool
There are two possibilities (real/not real) and either one is as likely as the other. 50% chance of being real and 50% chance being not real. — TheMadFool
As I said, I do not use numbers that aren't counts or measurements to describe reality. So, I would not use subjective "probability." It is only a mathematical disguise for prejudice.
What are the odds of the flipped coin landing on edge? — Dfpolis
What are the odds of the flipped coin landing on edge? — Dfpolis
This is a good question, you know, because I think it's happened for real but we should discuss this some other time as it's not relevant to my thesis as there are clearly only two options regarding any observation viz. is it real or is it not. — TheMadFool
You need a brush-up course in probability theory. — TheMadFool
I deflect that back to you — god must be atheist
Now. X, Y, and Z each toss the coin once. You say that the probabily of tail is 12.5%, and the probability of heads is also 12.5% of any given ONE toss. That is simply absurd. The probability that the coin will land on heads (or else tails) in each one of the three times of the tosses, is 50% times three tosses, and averaged over three tosses.
If the observation decided to be true is 50-50 by each of X, Y, and Z, then the observation's probability is (50%+50%+50%)/3, just like in the coin toss — god must be atheist
It is highly relevant as it relies on the same principle you use to assign a 50% probability to your alternatives. If we can have either A or not A, you say each has a 50% probability. So, since a flipped coin will either end balanced on edge or not, then the probability of its ending on edge is 50% — Dfpolis
There is a simple statistical answer to the OP, which is that the procedure you use, multiplying the odds of discrete events to obtain the odds of a combination of them [ p(A&B&C) = p(A)*p(B)*p(C) ], only works when the events are independent from one another. In this case they are not: if I see a flower on a plant, the chances that my wife will see a flower on that plant are very high. If X sees O, the chances that Y sees O are very high. Etc.
If the probability of event B is affected by wether or not A happens, then the two events are not independent and you cannot just multiply the probabilities like you did. Another procedure applies, though covariance and correlations, more complicated. — Olivier5
As far as I can tell there's no edge (third option) between real and not real. — TheMadFool
That is irrelevant to the way you assign probability numbers. Is your principle that "the truth of (A or not A) => P(A)=50% and P(not A)=50%", or not? If it is, then according to you, there is a 50% chance of a coin landing on edge. If not, all your claims about reality are baseless. — Dfpolis
O is too vague — Olivier5
By stating only 2 possibilities (on edge or not) — Dfpolis
A coin can land on edge or on a side. That is 2 possible outcomes. — Dfpolis
There are two sides and one edge. — TheMadFool
So you're saying there is a 33-1/3% chance of landing on edge? — Dfpolis
Like you, I divided the number of possibilities into 100% — Dfpolis
I would rather say that objectivity is an ideal which we can approach through repeatability (aka intersubjectivity) but never reach. — Olivier5
Several people sharing what each perceives subjectively = intersubjectivity. The principle of repeatability is basically saying that several people sharing what each perceives subjectively is a good way to approach tengentially the ideal of objectivity. — Olivier5
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.