As a wise man once said: " The world is is not only queerer than we suppose it is queerer than we can suppose.

To try to impose one's pre-supposed ideas and assumptions about the way the world 'should' be is naive.

If you still have a problem with probability and tumbling dice, I suggest you re-visit your assumptions regarding the way you think the world should be. — A Seagull

Great advice. Thanks.

I wouldn't say that theoretical probability assumes the system is non-deterministic. — litewave

It assumes the principle of indifference in this case - that all dice outcomes have an equal probability of 1/6. This assumption helps us calculate the probabilities and the experimental results match the predictions of this assumption. This is an assumption that the system is probabilistic.

If there is a contradiction, it is only in how the system is being represented. In this scenario, person B has complete information about the system whereas person A has only partial information. The difference is not in the system but in the information that each person has. — Andrew M

That makes sense but the issue is that the system (person A and the dice) behaves probabilistically as if B's knowledge amounts to nought. B knows what will happen with each throw of the dice BUT the system behaves as if that knowledge is irrelevant.

And if A threw a hundred sixes in a row it wouldn't be behaving like a probablilistic system? — Dawnstorm

Good point. Anything's possible in a game of chance. However, the issue is of predictability. Person B, given he knows the initial state of the system (person A and the dice) is able to predict every outcome; implying that the system is deterministic. However, the system behaves as if that (deterministic character) isn't the case.

No, because again, as I and others have explained, the theoretical probability does not assume the system is non-deterministic. — leo

:chin: Kindly read my reply to litewave

The world 'appears' deterministic at times at the human scale (e.g billiard balls on a pool table) but this in fact is only an artefact of approximate perception. Is that the origin of the confusion? — Pantagruel

How did you come to know that?

"B knows the initial states" But he cannot know the future with certainty. — sandman

Then sports or life, as we live it, would be impossible. Granted that not every pool player can predict the path of the black ball but experts do it as a matter of routine.


To All

It appears that there is an "explanation" for the situation.

The initial state of the system (person A and the dice) is, as assumed, random. Thus producing the results that are probabilistic.

Yes, person B can predict the outcome of each dice throw but he's oblivious about what these initial states will be. In other words B can predict the outcome of the initial state of the system but can't predict what these initial states will be.

Comments. Thanks.

Yes, person B can predict the outcome of each dice throw but he's oblivious about what these initial states will be. In other words B can predict the outcome of the initial state of the system but can't predict what these initial states will be. — TheMadFool

Thats like saying you can predict what someone will conclude without knowing their premises. Its nonsense. You would not be predicting. You'd be guessing.

Thats like saying you can predict what someone will conclude without knowing their premises. Its nonsense. You would not be predicting. You'd be guessing — Harry Hindu

What then is the correct explanation?

Probability, in my understanding, is the presence of multiple outcomes, each with its own weightage in terms of likelihood.

The opposite of probability, determinism, is that there is only one outcome given the initial state of a system.

In my example the system (person A and the dice) can have initial states that are probabilistic in nature. Even person B who can accurately calculate the outcome of the system doesn't have access to what initial states will obtain. It's here that probability creeps into what is actually a deterministic system.

It's not just the world, but my own mind. I have reasons for behaving the way I do, or for the conclusions I come to. That is how reasoning works. You use reasons to support your conclusion. Your reasons are usually observations. Reasoning is causal, and can be predictable when you have access to the information in another person's mind - like when you know how they think because you have the experience of having lived with them for 25 years. — Harry Hindu

Interesting. You are kind of making the case for a 'cumulative empirical intuition'. Even though the knowledge you are talking about doesn't achieve the level of formal conceptualization, it is possible to have a complete-enough knowledge of a system to apprehend it as deterministic. Performance knowledge preceding conceptual awareness. That approach does hold water I think.

An actuary can predict, from a group of 100 senior people, 10 will die within 15 yrs.
He just can't specify which individuals. Statistics is relative to group behavior.
Predicting die toss outcomes relies on the same type of statistics.

:chin: Kindly read my reply to litewave — TheMadFool

I have answered your questions, if you don't want to bother reading/understanding what I've explained at great length in order to help you understand, I won't bother any more.

Physics still relies upon a margin of error, significant digits, and laws, in order for events to operate. The throwing of dice takes on multiple potential outcomes that are significantly sensitive to a multitude of initial conditions. Sending a rocket to the moon, while full of risks is more consistent in its initial conditions and there are known states that rocket must be in various time slices to successfully and safely land on the moon.

1.) No, probability is not an illusion.

2.) Mediating variables/forces alter outcomes from deterministic systems.

A coin is partially symmetrical, such that it lands most often heads or tails, but it can also rarely land on its edge. Yet you can construct a deterministic system in which it always or almost always lands on its edge (make a system in which the coin bounces or slides on inclined surfaces so that it ends up in a groove the same width as the edge of the coin). In this case the deterministic system prefers a particular symmetry of the object. In that system the coin wouldn’t land heads 50% of the time and tails 50% of the time. And just because you can say that in this system the coin lands on its edge about 100% of the time, using probability jargon, that doesn’t mean that the deterministic system exhibits non-deterministic behavior, just like when a coin lands heads or tails about 50% of the time that doesn’t mean that the deterministic system exhibits non-deterministic behavior, just like when a dice lands about 1/6 of the time on a given side that doesn’t mean that the deterministic system exhibits non-deterministic behavior, with the dice too the system can be configured so that some particular side/sides is/are preferred — leo

What about a quantum coin or a quantum dice? Get ready for the deep mindfuck that is the quantum world of "subjective facts"

What about a quantum coin or a quantum dice? Get ready for the deep mindfuck that is the quantum world of "subjective facts" — Mark Dennis

That can be explained in an intuitive way though, without giving up an objective reality, when we take into account the fact that on small scales the instrument of measurement interacts with what is being measured in a non-negligible way, thus two different observers (or instruments of measurement) can make different observations/measurements :smile:

I think charecterising this as intuitive doesn't really reflect the reality that is Quantum mechanics.

Your response doesn't answer the fundamental question; How does a subjective microverse create an objective macroverse?

QM is not subjective.

Care to expand on that claim when I've actually brought evidence to the contrary to the discussion? Or is lack of effort your personal philosophy?

Lack of effort... cute.

You have brought argumentation you claim is evidence, but is not any sort of evidence. Quantum mechanics follows laws and then there are also 6 postulates of quantum mechanics as well. Wave-particle duality represents that depending upon the experiment or measurement being employed, one or the other will show up, but this hardly subjective; furthermore there is causality and determinism within QM, but it is counter-intuitive to our experiences in classical physics, (the macro-world).

To very simply and accurately answer the question of subjectivity, if QM were not objective than the correspondence principle would not hold where small particles and forces give rise to what we see in macro-physics, but rather, we would see all sorts of non-sensical changes.

We can certainly go down this rabbit hole too, but in the end, it does not mean QM is subjective:

http://dailynous.com/2019/03/21/philosophers-physics-experiment-suggests-theres-no-thing-objective-reality/

Oh, if you're talking about principles of QM being objective certainly although you've given a very watered down interpretation (As is any attempt to describe QM with language as opposed to mathematics.) Of those principles ans quantum phenomena.

However I'm thinking more of narrow subjectivism within paramaters of probability. I should have been clearer.

It still doesn't take away from the fact that if you read the link I shared and do some thorough research of the concepts contained within, you'd find that the conceptualization of a Subjective Fact within QM is entirely consistent with experimental data we currently have.

Some other good material to read up on; Quantum Eraser experiments and their variants plus the myriad of different double slit variations. Then you have the curious behaviour of light somehow bending around a galaxy only on one side only to be viewed later as bending around the opposite side with no explanation of how the light could have made it from one side of the galaxy to the other faster than the speed of light.

I don't claim to make any assumptions about your familiarity with QM but I'm very aware of my own and I'm up to date enough to know a curveball to my own understanding of QM when I read it and what I shared is definitely a curveball. What do I know though? Just relaying what the experts in QM are currently saying and matching it with the things I've already learned over the years.

We can use mathematics. I have read all of the suggestions you put forward above. I would love to delve into the math. The 6 postulates are a great starting point :) Probability has several interpretations and ine is a subjective view, but it does not hold in QM.

Let's start here since it is fundamental mathematically:

http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node20.html

Without the postulates, no math can be discussed regarding QM.

Good point. Anything's possible in a game of chance. However, the issue is of predictability. Person B, given he knows the initial state of the system (person A and the dice) is able to predict every outcome; implying that the system is deterministic. However, the system behaves as if that (deterministic character) isn't the case. — TheMadFool

I'm trying to figure out what you think a "probabilistic system" should look like. "The initial state of the system" is different for A and B. For A, it's simply a game of dice. For B, it's the current state of the universe. For A probability only allows six outcomes. B could know that A will die of a heart attack before he ever gets to throw the die (and his hand cramps, so the die doesn't even drop). In my view you're comparing apples and oranges. A asks "What are the odds?" and B asks "What will happen?"

B uses the chain of causality to compute the outcome. A uses probability to compute the odds. Take the following example:

A bag contains only red balls. You draw one of them in the hopes of it being red.

A will use probability theory and know immediately that given that he'll successfully draw a ball it will be red (because there's only one option).

B will have to go through multiple computations to figure out which ball A will draw and then check its colour. B will know, though this process, if A will successfully draw a ball, if so which one, and by implication its colour.

In this limited case, A and B will come to the same conclusion. Why? Because the probability to draw a red ball from a bag that only contains red balls is 100 %. B has a lot more information that pertains to the situation, though, including whether A will draw a ball at all.

I'm not sure I understood you correctly, though. I'm right in assuming that B follows the chain of causality (taking into account all data he has) and doesn't encounter a truly random process (which would contradict determinism)?

Of course, given perfect knowledge in a deterministic system, the question "What are the odds?" is superfluous, because it's always 100 %. But A has very limited knowledge.

A and B have different perspectives: A's tends to be more efficient (but he'll have to contend with risk), and B's tends to be more accurate (but he'd probably die of old age before he finishes the computions).

Thats like saying you can predict what someone will conclude without knowing their premises. Its nonsense. You would not be predicting. You'd be guessing
— Harry Hindu

What then is the correct explanation?

Probability, in my understanding, is the presence of multiple outcomes, each with its own weightage in terms of likelihood.

The opposite of probability, determinism, is that there is only one outcome given the initial state of a system.

In my example the system (person A and the dice) can have initial states that are probabilistic in nature. Even person B who can accurately calculate the outcome of the system doesn't have access to what initial states will obtain. It's here that probability creeps into what is actually a deterministic system. — TheMadFool

But the presence of multiple outcomes are in your head, not out in the world. It wouldn't be correct to call them multiple outcomes. Only one outcome occurs, not multiple ones. Possibilities are not outcomes. They are ideas in the head in the present that can change your behavior to be more in tune with the reality of the situation, or the imagined situation that you call a possible outcome.

The weightage of some outcome is dependent upon the information you have about present conditions and the effects they leave in some future moment, and the amount of outcomes we are talking about - like rolling a six-sided dice vs a 20-sided dice. Because the 20-sided dice has more "possible outcomes" than the six-sided one, the probability of any particular side being on top decreases. This is all the result of our ignorance. If we weren't ignorant of the facts of the present conditions and the effects they lead to in the future, then there would be no such thing as possible outcomes. The one and only outcome would be known.

The initial states aren't probabilistic in nature. If someone doesn't know the initial state, then how can they know some future state?

The weightage of some outcome is dependent upon the information you have about present conditions and the effects they leave in some future moment, and the amount of outcomes we are talking about - like rolling a six-sided dice vs a 20-sided dice. Because the 20-sided dice has more "possible outcomes" than the six-sided one, the probability of any particular side being on top decreases. This is all the result of our ignorance. If we weren't ignorant of the facts of the present conditions and the effects they lead to in the future, then there would be no such thing as possible outcomes. The one and only outcome would be known. — Harry Hindu

Experiments are typically done in an isolated environment to eliminate outside influences. Even with a mechanical tossing arm, at a microscopic level, it doesn't impart exactly the same impulse to a die each toss. Thus you don't have complete knowledge of the die state,unless you monitor the complete process, which itself introduces extraneous factors. You can only know the past!

Sorry ran out of data a few days ago and just topped up now.

Glad to find somebody who gets the math! I hope you understand it better than I do because it still crunches my head sometimes; before we carry on though, are you familiar with the concept Supervenience? X Supervenes Y; meaning X can change when Y has changed?

What makes me say QM is subjective is probably me mispeaking or not being specific enough. QM is a field of Objective human inquiry. However the Quantum Realm is subjective and as everything outside of the quantum Realm supervenes on the quantum realm; coupled with the new quantum coin inquiries leads me to some questions. Mainly how is a subjective quantum realm creating what seems to be a physically objective reality?

The reason I asked about Supervenience is that the link you shared reads as if it has forgotten Supervenience as it orders things strangely through the linear human discovery as opposed to the real orders of Supervenience.

Its kind of like using Atom to write code. Imagining atom as the universe, Sure the code you are writing is physics, but atom is written in Java (Quantum Mechanics). physics as we knew it before has kind of had a hole blown in it if you keep attempting to declare its dominance over QM.

So please tell me you are aware of Supervenience?

1. Is probability an illusion? — TheMadFool

reality only happens one way, and can only happen one way

possibilities and probabilities only exist in the ignorant mind that doesn't know which way its going to happen. if you had more knowledge and knew for-sure then you would see there was no other possibility or probability.

there is no potential in reality

"Do or do not, there is no try" - yoda

Any purported factual distinction between determinism and randomness isn't clear, in light of the problem of induction and the difficulty in defending an objective analytic-synthetic distinction.

How else can the 'factual' deterministic properties of a system be defended or even described, except in terms of the behavioural frequencies of ensembles of similar systems, to which a limit argument is then applied to produce a statement that has no correspondence to reality.

Determinism is neither a factual nor a logical concept; logic refers to statements that we treat as being identical. But identicality isn't a factual statement. All we have is 'factual similarity judgements' that refers to distinguishable facts which 'share' a set of preconditions and consequences in the sense that we have put them into a rough correspondence. Identicality is our treat of 'similar facts' as synonyms.

We are inhabiting a chaotic system. Consider yourself trying to walk from the back of a crowd to the front of a podium. In an empty space you can follow a perfect line which can be drawn between the 2 positions. However if you have to make your way through a dancing crowd you will weave your way through. Cumulatively the path you follow will be the same as the previous one as all the detours you make will cancel each other out. The same phenomenon can be observed in dice. Dice have an inherent 'nature' path they 'wish' to follow but the forces of entropy (chaos) throws them out of kilter.

The initial states aren't probabilistic in nature. If someone doesn't know the initial state, then how can they know some future state? — Harry Hindu

Thanks for your comments. It's been some time so you might have lost the train of thought.

Probability, in my opinion, has to be objective or real. By that I mean it is a property of nature just as mass or volume. So, when I say the probability of an atom of Plutonium to decay is 30% then this isn't because I lack information the acquisition of which will cause me to know exactly which atom will decay or not. Rather, radioactivity is objectively/really probabilistic.

If you agree with me so far let's go to my example: person A who doesn't have knowledge of the initial states of each dice throw and person B who has.

The fact of the matter is that, experimental probability? the outcomes of a throw of a dice, say done a 100 times, will be an almost perfect match with the calculated theoretical probability. For instance the probability of a dice throw with outcomes that are odd numbers is (3/6) or 50% and if you do throw the dice 100 times there will be 50 times the dice shows the numbers 1, 3, 5 (odd numbers).

This match between theoretical probability and experimental probability is "evidence" that the system (person A and the dice) is objectively/really probabilistic.

However, person B knows each initial state of the dice and can predict the exact outcome each time.

So, we have an "apparent" conundrum on our hands. The system (person A and the dice) is deterministic for B but it is also probabilistic (for A and B) in an objective sense.

At some level of the experiment, probability has creeped into the system (person A and the dice). The outcome of the dice is determined by the initial state of the dice. In essence we can replace the outcome of the dice with its initial state since the latter determines the former.

If, as the experiment reveals, the outcomes are indicating the system (person A and the dice) is objectively probabilistic, then it must be that the initial states are probabilistic. After all the outcomes are determined by the initial states.

What do you think?

Probability, in my opinion, has to be objective or real. By that I mean it is a property of nature just as mass or volume. So, when I say the probability of an atom of Plutonium to decay is 30% then this isn't because I lack information the acquisition of which will cause me to know exactly which atom will decay or not. Rather, radioactivity is objectively/really probabilistic. — TheMadFool

I never said that probability wasn't real. I said it is imaginary. Our imaginations can cause us to do things - like behave as if some other possibility was real in the sense that it exists as something other than an imagining.

I don't know what you are talking about when you are saying that "the probability of an atom of Plutonium to decay is 30%". Radioactive decay is a lawful process:
https://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/atomic-nuclear-physics/radioactive-decay/

If you agree with me so far let's go to my example: person A who doesn't have knowledge of the initial states of each dice throw and person B who has. — TheMadFool

Like I said, if someone doesn't have knowledge of the initial state, then how can they have knowledge of some future state which is just another initial state to some other future state further down the causal chain?

If, as the experiment reveals, the outcomes are indicating the system (person A and the dice) is objectively probabilistic, then it must be that the initial states are probabilistic. After all the outcomes are determined by the initial states. — TheMadFool

I don't see outcomeS. I see an outcome. There is only one outcome, but in the eyes of the ignorant there are multiple outcomes. How do you reconcile the fact that you have multiple outcomes in your head but only one outcome occurs - and maybe one that you didn't have in your head. If you didn't predict the outcome then what happened to all those outcomes you did predict in your head? They weren't really outcomes then, were they?

I never said that probability wasn't real. I said it is imaginary. — Harry Hindu

There is only one outcome, but in the eyes of the ignorant there are multiple outcomes — Harry Hindu

What is your explanation for why the system (person A with the dice) is behaving probabilistically?

You mentioned an important element in the system - ignorance. Person A is ignorant of the initial state of each throw of the dice and person B is ignorant of which initial state becomes a reality even though he knows the outcome after any particular initial state is selected.

So you think probability is an illusion and is just a symptom of ignorance?

There's one issue here that bothers me. If probability is an illusion/imaginary how is it that, in a simple game of dice, the principle of indifference - a feature of true/non-imaginary probability - helps us calculate probabilities that match experimental results? This isn't about ignorance is it? A deterministic system is conforming to a principle that applies only to objective probability. That would be like, in essence, being able to predict random numbers. There's something wrong. Care to take a shot at this. Thank you.

I think charecterising this as intuitive doesn't really reflect the reality that is Quantum mechanics.

Your response doesn't answer the fundamental question; How does a subjective microverse create an objective macroverse? — Mark Dennis

Sorry I missed your reply. Consider that on very small scales, when you try to measure a tiny thing (for instance by sending electrons or light towards it and measuring what's reflected), the act of measurement itself (which includes bombarding whatever you're measuring with electrons or photons) changes the position/trajectory of what you're measuring sufficiently that by the time you get the measurement you don't really know where the thing you have measured is anymore, you simply know approximately where it was and how fast it was going, but you don't know where it is and how fast it is going.

On the macroscale, the photons that for instance your body emits have a negligible influence on what you observe for instance with your eyes, the presence of your body does not change the position of a rock or of a wall if you're simply looking at it.

The popular interpretation of quantum mechanics is that probability is fundamental, which leads to all sorts of confusion and apparent paradoxes, but it's not necessary to see it that way, it can be interpreted in an intuitive way (as above). There's a similar situation in relativity, special relativity can be interpreted in a way that doesn't lead to all kinds of incomprehensible paradoxes (like the twin paradox).

The fact of the matter is that, experimental probability? the outcomes of a throw of a dice, say done a 100 times, will be an almost perfect match with the calculated theoretical probability. For instance the probability of a dice throw with outcomes that are odd numbers is (3/6) or 50% and if you do throw the dice 100 times there will be 50 times the dice shows the numbers 1, 3, 5 (odd numbers).

This match between theoretical probability and experimental probability is "evidence" that the system (person A and the dice) is objectively/really probabilistic. — TheMadFool

I already explained in my previous posts everything you need to understand your confusion, if only you made the effort to read and understand. I won't repeat everything obviously as you would probably again not care to read the whole thing.

The fact of the matter is that, sometimes, you will throw the dice a hundred times and you will get the same outcome a hundred times. It is possible that you throw the dice a hundred thousand times and that it never lands on some specific number.

Would you count that as evidence that the system is not really probabilistic?

If, as the experiment reveals, the outcomes are indicating the system (person A and the dice) is objectively probabilistic, then it must be that the initial states are probabilistic. After all the outcomes are determined by the initial states. — TheMadFool

Yes, in a deterministic system the outcome is determined by the initial state, which includes the initial position/orientation/angle/velocity of the dice, the air density, wind, shape/hardness of the ground and so on. And again, as I explained several times, make one side of the dice more sticky than the others and the dice will land more often on that side, changing the probability distribution. Always start with the same initial state and the dice will always land on the same side, changing the probability distribution (100% for that side, 0% for the other sides). Would you say that in a system where the dice always lands on the same side, the system is inherently probabilistic?

Reflect on that, in order to understand the problem in your reasoning.

(hint: a dice is symmetric, if you don't break that symmetry then the rest of the system has no reason to break it either)

(hint2: if you rotate the dice in your hand for a while in arbitrary directions without looking at it and then you look at which side is up, you will get each side about equally as often, does that mean that the dice is inherently probabilistic? That the system dice+hand is inherently probabilistic? Or neither?)

intuitive way — leo

What does intuition mean to you though? I've got what my answer is or what I think it might be but I'm curious to know yours.

Do you think it might be possible that what is intuitive to you isn't intuitive to me? If so, why? Thank you for the constructive points and I am looking forward to hearing more :)

So you think probability is an illusion and is just a symptom of ignorance? — TheMadFool

I'm never sure where I stand on probability but whether the universe is entirely probabilistic I cannot say. What I'm sure of however, is we are ignorant of what all the probabilities are. Unfortunately due to the very nature of human knowledge, there is an insurmountable wall between individual knowledge and collective knowledge. While technology and science are lowering the height of this wall it is still there. The wall of ignorance is made of time. For all we know, in the vastness of human inquiry and knowledge we may in fact collectively know all there is to know or at least all probabilities have been guessed... But how could the individual ever know what the collective knows in its full scope? You would have to know what everyone has said of everything and recall it all at once.

Sorry if this is too off topic for the OP. I'll let the mods decide if this should be moved elsewhere.

What does intuition mean to you though? I've got what my answer is or what I think it might be but I'm curious to know yours.

Do you think it might be possible that what is intuitive to you isn't intuitive to me? If so, why? Thank you for the constructive points and I am looking forward to hearing more :) — Mark Dennis

I meant intuitive as in particles can be seen as having a definite trajectory even when they aren't observed, as in one particle doesn't follow several trajectories simultaneously, as in things do not behave in a fundamentally different way than what we're used to observe.

Sure it's possible that what is intuitive to me isn't intuitive to you, however it seems to me that most people find it unintuitive to imagine a single particle following two different trajectories at the same time, or to imagine two twins each aging more quickly than the other when they are in relative motion and yet when they reunite one has aged more than the other, actually I believe I have yet to find one person who finds that stuff intuitive :)