Scott Mayers

Okay? Thanks for your disapproval. But if you know the rules of appropriate dialectic, your first sentence grants you the onus to provide your own justification with proof. Considering that you lack this awareness by default, it tells me you lack even the standards of logic itself to be able to judge one way or the other. Thus, I'm guessing that you don't even know whether Godel's theorem is even valid in the first place. This proves definitively that you have no credibility to your own view and are merely acting to harass. Next.

Gödel is wrong because he depended his argument on the idea that the abstract nature that defines the class of a universal to include itself. While I think this is alright too, in such an interpretation, he has no justice to assume that an infinite regress itself is not allowed. A set that is defined as "the set of all sets" is one in which a member of it must also include this set too in an infinite regress. So his argument about such a possible set to be unable to be 'closed' or is "incomplete" falters because with respect to reality because he merely begs that the idea of infinity is not closed. But just because we as humans are locally unable to find closure with respect to totality as a whole, does not mean that totality itself finds this idea "incomplete". For instance, the idea of a verb such as "walk" is infinite in this sense. Yet we still understand it finitely too. We do this when we create the term, "walking" to give it a noun meaning. [a Gerund] The proof by Gödel was merely to show that all logical systems cannot be closed as he presented this type of argument to show that at least one will always exist that is in itself unclosed by his definition. However, we can also argue that the very process of him demonstrating the non-closure of all logics/maths can be closed in 'process' by redefining infinity in those logics generatively to become closed just as a verb can be translated into a noun. Even if another proof can come along to reinstate Gödel's theorem, another theorem can be presented generatively to prove it closed. Another point is that if you accept Gödel's "Incompleteness Theorem" as is, this HAS to apply for all systems including science with it's stance on permanent tentativity in the same incompleteness. Most already default to assume that science does not nor cannot determine 'truth' because of this. Therefore, is science not just as rationally insignificant as logic in the same way? It is for this reason that I find science incomplete without the philosophy respecting logic as its underlying reality. NOTE: You know that while Gödel's theorem is a theorem, what I present about redefining "infinity" can also disprove Gödel's theorem and act as a theorem itself. It makes his theorem itself without closure allowing for all logical systems.

Just in case I might be misinterpreted, I often use the word, "fringe" to describe any of the sciences of the very large (Cosmology, Astronomy) and the very small (Quantum Mechanics, Atomic Physics), and to specifically any theories in these that are based on observations that are unable to be repeatable. If anyone knows of a better term for this, I welcome it if only to prevent thinking of 'fringe' as science fiction. (P.S. I did like that show, "Fringe" though...that science fiction series a few years ago.)

A catalyst (enzyme in biochem) is a chemical that only acts in some reaction momentarily but itself does not change. That is, it steps in momentarily, participates in other reactions, but then steps out 'unaffected' or unchanged. You assume the idea of using the tool doesn't have to be real in itself. If it is 'discovered' (I more than agree!), then is it not equally a function of nature and reality? Who says anything about 'design'? I'm more athiestic than you could likely imagine....nihilistic to top it off. I'm saying that logic or math act like the foundation and framework of a building at LEAST such that it allows one to place facts of reality in them with regards to science to find a means to connect them and draw conclusions. So it is not merely a catalyst, but requires to be substantial itself as it must remain in place to maintain support of the science. I'm for the empirical approach to logic too, ...a logical postivist one that got abandoned from science intentionally for expediency in politics. It's why you can't make Relativity fit with Quantum Mechanics for instance. They collide in severe contradiction. But we retain the interpretations intact of the initial author's 'story' in lieu of allowing better ones by reexamining the logic deductively. Today's science maintains a practice-only empiricism which bans logic other than as its political uses to prop up institutions and evade what the logical approach leads to. I'm not against 'science'. Just the paradigm preserving a hands-off stance against philosophy and logic as its complementary function necessary to find real closure.

I don't follow you. Although I agree to other possible factors my intent is to the discuss the abstraction of this diagram's meaning to reality limited to what I've given. Yes, you can include us as an observer (like a god looking down on this world). So if we do this like an accountant might initialize an accounting system, we could lay out all the elements involved. I already mentioned the given path, the T-intersection going in, you might include the T-intersection going out. Call the source route going in as the origin, the end as the 'goal' as labeled. An arbitrary person, beginning at the start and aiming to get to the goal. and the particular options of direction. Then we can include us as the 'god' perspective as we observe and the person's perspective. Elements involved (brainstorm) Origin location (left side in the diagram) End location labeled "goal" (right side of diagram) the mapped rout of the road from origin to goal as illustrated a Person a direction towards the goal a T-intersection going into loop a T-intersection going out loop A "left" direction a "right" direction the perspective from the position of beginning of Person the perspective form the position of beginning of our perspective the perspective from the position of the first T-intersection of Person the perspective from the position of the first T-intersection of our perspective the perspective from the position of the second T-intersection of Person the perspective from the position of the second T-intersection of our perspective the perspective form the position of end of Person the perspective form the position of end of our perspective velocity or rate of Person Do you have any extras you think are relevant? You wanted more complexity. Here you go.

What about my point on how testing is not appropriate for the fringes of science? There are really certain things that cannot be tested repeatedly. All that sufficient is for the first one to create a story that fits. Since you cannot create new experiments on the qualifying prerequisite of testing, is this not similar to how a religion can assert their own out of reach of testing? Do you follow?

I responded specifically to DevilSolution. If math is only a 'tool' how can you trust it other than to how you predesign the tool to effectively meet your intended end goals, like an enzyme or catalyst that steps out unaffected? Are enzymes real? Thus, by 'tool' do you think that math or logic is unreal? Can you think of logic/math as empirically justified? If these are not real, then why not use other unreal tools like myths or religion to support your rationalizations?

You don't think the investment in the cost and time expended in a degree or more contributes to how much one gets biased to conform to any standards taught if they get that far. It certainly happens to us all. But do you think one who goes through such an institute has more to risk that might lead to potential abuses? Are ALL 'scientists' equivalent in particular quality of education? to respect to whether they are a 59% average student or a 99% one? to the nature of their undergraduate degrees? to the particular mastery, to their internal motives, or to their actual contributions in a PhD? etc, etc, etc... Wouldn't one 'educated' in such an extensive education require the capacity to have the training to adapt such that they could also use such skills to communicate effectively to the lay person or even a child with respect? Do politics play a role in how one succeeds or not? The quality of education or the money one has to afford such an education? To move forward means trying to understand the meaning of 'truth' as it relates to different people among other terms or concepts. So take this post as adding new other ideas to question if you like. If you read what I wrote on the terms, does this add value to the conversation? Do you agree or can you propose some other terms to include all of the different meanings (without exclusion of the other's suggested meanings)?

Don't mind me if I ignore further goading. While I don't mind including other factors like death or other points that might be related, this is the first point you actually made that at least doesn't break the limitations of the givens since it involve the 'person' I defined in it. But it appears that you're purposely more interested in diluting my point like an attorney might burden their opposition by dumping an unusual excess of trivial paper work to hide the evidence like a needle in a haystack. As to Cuba's response, what 'further choices' are you thinking of? If you assume an indeterminate reality to humanity ("free choice" as it is often referred to) by the perspective of the person at the intersection, and their choice is sincerely 'random', we would assign both "left" and "right" as valid possible options and grant them as equivalent values = 1/2. 1/2 "left" + 1/2 "right" = 1. If you assume a personally determinate means based on things like 'right-handedness' or other complex factors, one may actually have no real 'choice' other than one's delusion of it and opt to always turn "right". In this scenario, you may be assured to (always go right without exception). So in this scenario, only the right selection counts and is = 1, while the "left" option = 0. 1 "right" + 0 "left" = 1. What's so difficult to understand what this means? I'm only asking if you or others agree to this much? I don't think that other options are discounted either. But I'm focusing on moving forward by getting a 'nod'. If it is about some preferred preference for using different symbols, that's alright. studiot mentions 'death' as a possibility. How might we represent this? I'd first have to distinguish between at least two kinds of death: one where the person dies indeterminately (like some unpredictable heart attack), one where the person dies determinately (like someone adding an additional premise of some third person in the picture or themselves as motivators) These last ones cannot count as I have not defined an extra person and have predefined the person as intending to reach the 'goal', so suicide would not be an allowed possible motive affecting the person. What's left is indeterminate and incommensurate without having specific information about this arbitrary person. Thus this removes "death" as a factor of assigning values.

On the concept of "testing" as an internal function of the method, I do not think applies to the fringe areas of sciences, cosmology nor atomic physics. While they contain a great deal of some of the most costly of experiments, they are still mostly of a "Natural Philosophy" stage. The general scientific method is best for the practices of science in the middle. You cannot 'test' or 'retest' the Cosmic Background Radiation. In the exact opposite, the Atomic nature of method is a statistical one and uses destructive means to try to piece the puzzles together in high uncertainty. So most of the theories of authorities within them are not that far away from speculators as to interpretation. Also the fact that Relativity contrasts with QM is the largest example of how the inconsistencies between the two demonstrate how science as a whole resists the tentative nature they are supposedly claiming to endorse. I read one comment in this thread by one asserting a clear acceptance of a liberally conservative interpretation. That we should "conserve" or resist changes helps science is not true in all divergent areas of science. "Predictability" to me is a renewed interest in Prophecy of religion too. They are supportive but not necessary. Especially if certainty (trying to evade the 'truthiness' word) is disdained anyways. There really are some absolute truths as well as fuzzy ones. Why absolution should be traded for prioritizing 'fuzziness' is even odder to me. It says, "Let's all agree to be hopelessly uncertain. Truth to you is False to me and we are both always right and wrong at the same time." Hmmm, reminds me of "God is love is beauty is you and me and hate and fire and ... X = Y = Z" It comes across as embracing obscurity in contradiction to precision at the same time without being certain when or where to take one meaning serious over another. Long exposure to a life addicted to Dihydrogen Monoxide also leads to certain death...... In fact, I'd say more that smoking victims!

"Truth" in context to most scientist are trained to interpret this as "opinion" by how philosophy would defer to it. In contrast, a "fact" to both the scientist and philosopher (most of us) assume it as a contingent reality interpreted locally through our experience. However there are some distinctions I still don't follow with the way language is being purposely isolated in the teaching of science. So if it helps for others lacking an understanding, the philosophical interpretation of "truth" is a value assignment that maps to a similar understanding of reality. I can only guess that the losses in translation may be due to how 'truth' can reference either the value of 'facts' with regards to nature (a perfect or ideal observer) or the relative 'facts' based upon the individual. From what I see, many in the support of the paradigm of practice over philosophical analysis treats "truth" as an over-abused synonym in competition with those extremes in religion who misappropriate the term "truth" as "The Truth " as a reference to their fundamental beliefs. Those of us from the background of self-motivated learning often begin with the historical tradition to learn and so default to learning how the original terms evolved through history. It is easier when you are learning by your own impetus to begin with a foundation and work your way up to understanding how something can be understood. Institutional learning turns the table around by advancing students who can learn quick and maintain memory on a short-term to medium basis with practical result. It is still a 'good' way to learn by some but only in a different way. I'm at least glad to know that I can relate better with the actual historical figures in science or elsewhere who were just as self-motivated up front and resisted authority. It's something that is rarer these days except for those utilizing the internet to such effectiveness to learn on their own internal curiosity.

Some, like you, started this against me here by your own feigned superiority and intentional treatment of me as some green thumb that I'm not. I am far from any troll and you'd see I don't attend to bother with those who do. But I come here as my namesake while you hide in obscure anonymity. So please, Acme, if you want to compete fairly, either qualify yourself with real credentials unanonymously or play fair and argue in context to the discussions. If you are demanding me of respect, you have to be just as willing to try too. Sorry for any reflection to you in kind. But you've got more to prove to me than I to you. I'm hoping devilsolution shows up to give me his response as I'm not interesting in discussing with others as it is clear you are only trying to 'put me in my place'. I have nothing against you personally. Thank you.

Weird. I have a good stalked library of universally non-fiction material in all academic areas (a lot of which are text books too). I read across areas of different studies in contrast to the way you may have learned in more concentrated study. So I am well read and have no problem understanding the uses. I have and read Euclid's Elements as I have even my original high school texts on this. I've read across different algebra and calculus texts. I've read and studied logic in all its forms. The one common feature about all of them is that they use different terms in different areas that are not linked together. As such you learn to adapt to each understanding in practice. Propositions are any "assumptions" traditionally used in Propositional logic (deals with any general human language without concern for external quantifiers.) "Pro-" (= ahead of) "-posit-" (= to pose, as opposed to negating) a (posit)"-ion". The use is best in use for debate, politics, colloquial use, and logic. Postulates are preferred uses of "assumptions" in modern geometry-related works or to reference self-evident propositions. "Post-" as in command by an official posted edict without question up front. Also related to "pose" as well. This is used to beg the reader of the proof to intuit the reasoning without having to require more depth than what is self-evident. Common Notions were the external assumptions of another trusted system of thought in common popular use. Like using popular observational conclusions common among people within geometry. Axioms represented initially the conclusions within a system used as assumptions that were raised above a need for proof as they had already been proven within the system usually. They are also more common in use in pure numerical systems nowadays rather than geometry. But many use them distinctly to presume conclusions from a closely related. As akin to common notions, axioms can be the conclusions of another separate but related logic as borrowed in respect of it. Theorems are the same as Axioms but within the system usually. ... I don't need to go on as they are many. They all relate to "assumption" ("theorem" usually a conditional statement to some conclusion) in some way. It's not important. "dis'ing" is short for "disrespecting". I purposely used it in contrast to the point I was making of how you are disrespecting the intention of the argument. If I'm doing this to you, at least you seem more informed than I am by my content rather than providing more depth to specify your meaning against me.

What the hell are you talking about? You seem to be commanding you know my intent better than I do myself! I was using as layman terms as I could to appeal to anyone who might read this with different backgrounds. I am GIVING the scenario. Don't impose stuff I haven't a need for here. If you are sincere to some background in probability, don't be so strict to your preferred language or depths beyond what I'm asking. If you studied these, did you learn from one set of unique books? Did you learn the theorems by proof or did you just skip to the conclusions and memorized them in trust they work? I have mentioned nothing of flaw here. AND the odds DO happen to add up to 1 in what I have demonstrated above. There are NO possibilities except for the two I'm giving by definition. It simplifies the options to a binary set of choices to focus on how to weigh each possibility to a probability. I showed the variants above I see so far. What is your specific disagreement about as I cannot read your mind and you are just making blanketed statements without reference?

I don't get your contention with me on this??? This only reminds me of an elitist antique book seller I knew years ago who was so absurdly pedantic as to the specific pronunciation of "Principles of Mathematics" (Russel and Whitehead's three-volume tomb) when I inquired about whether he had it. I pronounce it as "prinsiples" just as we use it colloquially in my world and he insisted adamantly that I pronounce it "prinkiple" as if it had necessary significance. This is the same with your insistence on particular use and is why and where the image of many scientists get appropriately labeled as elitist (or snobbish). Who cares which words we use as long as when or where we use them we can relate. Are you not flexible enough to be able to interpret the sign "+" for meaning "inclusive OR" in logic because you only think of it as meaning "addition"? And no, I didn't buy the book. It was like $15, 000 as some collectible original. I opted to read the ones from my library.

Many of you need to go back to school to take logic proper. I also recommend a need for more philosophy requirements to graduate for even a Bachelor's degree. On definitions, my point, as it relates to philosophy, is that you have to attend to the particular people you discuss things with to find common agreed to definitions. You dis'ed me for your fixed interpretation of the word "axiom" in your own head. To anyone versed in dialectic, you have to begin with definitions up front for the present argument. It is impossible for any one person to be sufficiently flexible to speak in everyone's different jargon they prefer to use in different fields. A "postulate" is an old term most often used in the Greek geometry and focused on procedural drawings (like using a compass and straight edge) to demonstrate the math without using numbers because they lacked our present zero in their language, whereas in later evolved maths using the term, "axiom" for assumptions, this DID use numbers. But if you've read across different literature, you'd see that most use a variety of different terms often to specifically reference their intentional meaning. As to Godel (excuse that I'm not bothering to use the character map for the 'o'), he even had doubts of it later as new set theory ideas came about that limited the dilemmas that lead to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. He also refused to allow for a meaning to infinite actions to be de-fined (of finite meaning or closure). This defaults his theorem by definition begging. But the political use of his theorem was intended to aid in demarcating science from other socially accepted views from those who either practiced fraudulent science or the religious fervor of the West who used logic in apparently arbitrary ways to appear to 'prove anything'. This was more about expedience, not sincerity to truth. Also, the Big Bang theory was desired politically over the Steady State model in order to appeal broadly to all people if only to keep the average yokel from politically succeeding to attract students to science. The math itself isn't political, it is the politics that favored those who would present theories that don't insult religion, economic industries, governments or the authorities of distinguished universities who desire controls. The theorem is political in that it is one of the major theories that actually turned the tide to foster a different educational approach. Fears of Communism with their 'atheistic commie' thoughts were in the minds of most back then. And the World Wars that were based on the very logical analysis that also fostered the growth of science was suddenly recognized to be a threat if not contained in a way by the politics. Science first and foremost to politics is the factor that gave them the weapons of mass destruction. These things were sufficient motivators to initiate a clear motive to contain science and distinctly separate it from the foundational reflective training except for the privileged ones who could earn their trust. As such, they succeeded as even here and in the split thread can be witnessed an odd 'faith-like' blind belief in a specific method without sincere self-referential experience in scientific philosophy. Nor am I being absolute here. But it is those like you how yell the loudest and feign that scientists are all on the same side. I'm glad to see SillyBilly here on this site and will be joining him in his efforts as I get where he's coming from. Philosophy 101 lessons. From Socrates on: Define the terms and question everything! This doesn't mean define a distinct set of terms in stone either. It means that in discussing anything within any group of people, you negotiate the definitions even if they are to be used only specifically for the argument at hand. The question everything with openness and sincerity without insulting others (Charity to grant others by default as being sensible at all times). Rhetoric (like the informal logic dealing with fallacies in conversational language), a subdivision of logic, is more lacking in pure scientists than most other areas. I discover more students who learn of this now from the light discourse on this in those like Richard Dawkins or a multitude of others who appear to have only recently popularized this. It's about a means to converse in a socially clear way or with precision as good lawyers or politicians are more versed in. So yeah, it is about me (and you) to redefine terms where necessary to communicate better to meet in the middle.

I'm only quoting your last post here as I'm late coming in and only intend to let you know I'm with you on most of this. You asked for supports. I'm here. But I need time to catch up on all that's been discussed so far. 10 pages! I agree that there is a lot of problems with how many scientists today take conflicting value on what "truth" is. Today's professionals through institutions lack the traditional bottom-up approach that required philosophical dialectic to come first. A PhD is the only sincere degree today that allows them to speak [think] freely. For the undergraduates spend more emphasis on rote learning and clerical training in order to pump out productive people for the work force. So they reverse the traditional order of learning and often lack a good logical background. Instead, everything is about practice. Ironically, although clothed in education, i compare this to how an experienced mechanic of the past might disparage university degrees 'wit all dem theris an stuff' as stupid thinking because they lack the significance of experience. Nowadays, most (not all) scientists are technical laborers who actually work for the deeper thinkers and have developed a similar attitude to the mechanic dismissing the traditional theoreticians who DID originally have to focus on self-reflective thinking up front. I'll be back when I'm caught up. Good effort so far that I read of you though. Scott.

I've discussed this interpretation before elsewhere. Words like assumption, premise, axiom, postulate, among others all depend on the particular use of the author using them and normally mean the same for simple uses. But if you want to be more descriptive, especially where you want to distinguish between initial inputs to an argument or form to contrast specific kinds of inputs based on assumptions within a system of arguments, then it is useful to assign more distinct meanings. I like using "postulate" to those assumptions we input at the beginning of a system of arguments and axioms as input assumptions based on prior theorems or its own postulates or definitions of that system. I'm very familiar with Godel's incompleteness theorem and have contention with it as it allows a set to be defined such that it's universal description can be included within the set. [A Set of all Sets, for instance which requires it to be included in itself] Implicitly Godel theorem is what I think tipped a change in science but it is not valid to your interpretation although most assumed it as such and digresses to more specifics worthy of discussing separately from this thread. I'm not sure why you'd think that mentioning this or Wikipedia was what I'm thinking of by 'political'. As to Godel's theorem and the surrounding philosophy and science of the day, this involved a lot of politics with regards to the world wars, the standards of encouraging students into science, the institutions' pressures to appeal to threats by and for religion as opposed to atheism, etc, etc. But my response was to the OP and he/she sounds too new to this to get to such depths at this point.

I wasn't placing a God in this at all (nor would). But your reference to quantum tunneling or reversing directions both are just this type of thing considering what it is beyond what I was discussing. That was my point on that. I have a good background in logic, much of maths, philosophy, and the sciences, among many others. You are adding inferences in the problem that I'm not interested in. The components involved are a person (not important whether actually driving a car, bus, or walking), the abstract drawing to represent a split path with two distinct options (left and right) and a goal. I don't think 'force' is necessary here either. The only technical 'force' is that the person intends the generic unspoken 'goal' to go to and the intersection where he/she's 'forced' to make a decision. If you want to introduce concepts you learned that you believe I'm unaware of, your welcome to. Just define them and explain. For instance, although the first respondent was partially just being humorous, he pointed out some of the intentional factors involved. That with respect to the person facing these options they can be intrinsically determined to favor one option. He used background reference to cultures but appears to understand the point regardless. In this case, if we are to interpret the nature of ones' determination via physics, this person would be 'determined' to select one unique option. That is, if he/she turned "left", while there may be many complex factors going into it, he/she would always turn left if we were to have recorded it and checked back on the recording. This would mean that this person would be determined to turn left 100% and right 0 %. It's unimportant to define times to reference frequencies as this is not necessary. It could be considered one event only at this point. So, 100% = (1 unique option)/(1 unique event at this intersection) = 1 0% = (0 unique option)/(1 unique event) = 0 If we consider 'fairness' in that the person is equally indeterminate to take either left or right (like in a multiple world's interpretation OR using repeated stats or frequency), then the event would be 50% = 1/2 for left 50% = 1/2 for right If we consider 'predicting' as an outsider looking in to this problem, because it may the be case that nature is 'unfair' as we cannot determine it in practice, the odds might be completely indeterminate until we witness the actual decision like predicting the weather 30 days in advance. These are ones that I can think of. Are these valid interpretations of possible measures here? Are there others?

Interesting post. As to defining probabilities in question, I'm looking for the various interpretations regardless. But I'm being literal to the paths given as presented. That is, I am not asking for additional elements beyond the choices presented. If I was, then a "god" answer would just as well be as equally possible. So to reflecting back upon ones path OR to quantum tunneling, I'm not concerned as these involve adding more detail that I haven't presented. The beginning of the event is the person approaching the intersection, the end is the "goal" defined and intended [the turn around option is not relevant], and the options entering the loop are strictly determined by the "left" or "right" options. Just in case you might add any concern further, upon either choice (or selection option), since the goal is defined essential, there is no option but to turn to the goal and so continuing to loop around are irrelevant too. I do gather thus far that you interpret the possibility of different interpretations at least. Do you think that the perception of the observer counts too? That is, can you agree/disagree whether you define whether we are discussing different probabilities with respect to the driver approaching the intersection or our ideal "god's-eye" perspective looking in on the puzzle? In respect of the examples you give above, even though I'm not dealing with this at present, does the probability also change if we consider 'trust'? Thus, in your mention of opting to turn around can be about being informed that your decision to drive that way is not your goal (trusting the signs, that is).

You'll see how this fits in to the other issues later if I raise them. I need to ask this without concerning my motives at this point and only mention what I did as it appears I'm being defaulted with being hideous or deceptive by some of these posts. The diagram I made is sufficient for my purpose in this thread and the topic at hand thus far.

Not going to digress here on this. I only want to determine how most interpret the initial question set up and why?

I'm trying to see if you or others can enumerate the different ways to assign values to a probability or whether you (or others) interpret a strict interpretation here. I also want to later (not necessarily in this thread) introduce the Monty Hall Problem and find this would be a good precursor to discussing that. I'm not so interested in the puzzle as much as I am in interpretation. In other related areas of philosophy, I've also had concerns about what people think regarding whether we have one universe or multiple ones AND how it relates to what one believes regarding various ideas on determination. And on the distinction between hypothesis and theory. Yes, I understand them. But you again default to presuming something about me without charity. I was poking fun at your initial response to just that.

Instead of insulting up front, perhaps you might participate? Oh wait. Now that I think about it, here's my hypothesis: I bet that if anyone opts to question something too apparently simple that you'd get suspicious of one attempting to trick others into following one's 'pet' theory, Sorry, I couldn't tell you up front as this would have spoiled the experiment. But you've confirmed my prediction now. Am I now qualified to have a legit theory now?

I could have asked this without using the suffix, "-ism". But you see how I'm opening this inquiry. But reducing this to an individual instead of groups of people, for any one same person, is the probability 1/2 for each of these options, "left" or "right"? Do we say that given a determinate interpretation of reality that if you opt to turn "left", say, is this an inevitable choice such that the odds to turn "left" is 1, while the odds to turn "right" is 0, or vise versa? Or do we interpret the result of the end-goal in mind and assume any option is irrelevant to the goal? Suspicious a little? My intention is to participate interactively. I can often write long posts that many usually get turned off to because it doesn't fit in their 2" iPhone screens. But yes, I'm leading a bit here but also hope to learn of what kind of thinkers are here who can relate and add some insight on questions regarding the use of math of probabilities and to how physicists use this with regards to Quantum Mechanics, etc.