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
I wouldn't say that theoretical probability assumes the system is non-deterministic. — litewave
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
And if A threw a hundred sixes in a row it wouldn't be behaving like a probablilistic system? — Dawnstorm
No, because again, as I and others have explained, the theoretical probability does not assume the system is non-deterministic. — leo
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
"B knows the initial states" But he cannot know the future with certainty. — sandman
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 — 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.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
:chin: Kindly read my reply to litewave — TheMadFool
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" — Mark Dennis
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
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
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
1. Is probability an illusion? — TheMadFool
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
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.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
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 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
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?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 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
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
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
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
intuitive way — leo
So you think probability is an illusion and is just a symptom of ignorance? — TheMadFool
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
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.