Human factor in probability

[Lord Antares]

Before you roll a die, you could say there is a 1 in 6 chance that it lands on any of the numbered sides.

After you roll a die, you could make the point that there is a 1 in 1 chance that it lands on a certain side. I know this is practically irrelevant and too complex for humans to calculate, but it is technically correct. If you were to assign a super-advanced machine to calculate odds, it would always give 1 in 1 odds for it landing on a certain side. It would be able to calculate this from the angle, force, direction etc. of the die throw. If you were to throw the die under the same conditions an infinite numbers of times, the same result would always come up.

 

The same is true for coins or any kind of probability-based game.

 

Now, what got me thinking about this is a post from a member who gave the odds of the earth being made exactly the way it is. The practical odds he gave were very small (he had no evidence for these values but that's besides the point).

 

Now, if you were to task said-super advanced machine to calculate these odds after the big bang, it would give 1 in 1 odds, because it already possesses sufficient information to calculate this (it would be able to infer this from the physics and chemistry of the big bang etc.).

Of course, such a feat would require a retardedly strong machine, but the point still stands.

 

Now, my question is, would this machine be able to do the same for a human throwing dice? Do you think there is an algorithm, however complex, for human decision-making in these cases?

 

For example, you make a 3D program in which the computer simulations dice throwing. The throws are seemingly random but obviously affected by its algorithmic limitations. Now our super machine would always be able to give 1 in 1 odds for each of its throws because it would detect its algorithms.

Would it do the same to humans? Are humans completely unpredictable in odds-based situations or are they not? What do you think?

I was not sure where to post this thread. It could be in the computer science forum as well, but I want to emphasize the mathematical nature of the question as well.

[wtf]

Now, if you were to task said-super advanced machine to calculate these odds after the big bang, it would give 1 in 1 odds, because it already possesses sufficient information to calculate this (it would be able to infer this from the physics and chemistry of the big bang etc.).

Of course, such a feat would require a retardedly strong machine, but the point still stands.

No, this turns out to be untrue. Even if you know the position and velocity of every particle of a deterministic system, you still can't predict the future. As an example, we still have no idea whether the solar system is stable under Newtonian gravity.

 

The main problems are:

 

* You can't solve the n-body problem.

 

* Rounding errors in the calculations will add up over time.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System

 

A highly recommended popular book on the subject is:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Newtons-Clock-Chaos-Solar-System/dp/0716727242

Edited February 14, 2017 by wtf

[Lord Antares]

Even if you know the position and velocity of every particle of a deterministic system, you still can't predict the future.

 

Well, no. I was considering a hypothetical machine which woul be able to calculate beyond this. A machine which would have every bit of information (about the physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology etc.) which it would use to calculate the exact position, age and composition of the earth.

 

Excuse me if I'm missing something. I've seen some of your posts and you seem to be really knowledgeable about mathematics, but I cannot take the time now to read all of these before replying to you. I've skimmed through them and there is a lot to take in. If there's something I'm missing, let me know.

 

Basically, to rephrase the question: there are certain algorithms and laws which govern how the universe works. These are objective and ALWAYS true. That's why they are laws. Humans don't work that way. They aren't neccessarily predictable. So I'm asking if you think there ARE algorithms and patterns on human decision regarding odds and if they can be acted upon. Would a sufficiently advanced machine be able to decode them?

[wtf]

Basically, to rephrase the question: there are certain algorithms and laws which govern how the universe works. These are objective and ALWAYS true. That's why they are laws. Humans don't work that way. They aren't neccessarily predictable. So I'm asking if you think there ARE algorithms and patterns on human decision regarding odds and if they can be acted upon. Would a sufficiently advanced machine be able to decode them?

Not by any conventional definition of machine.

 

On the other hand if you're asking if God can predict the future, then that's a question of theology.

 

The Wiki links on the n-body problem, chaos theory, and the stability of the solar system provide basic information on my point.

 

If by machine you mean something that can store a finite amount of information, then it's subject to rounding error, and these will add up over time making prediction impossible.

 

If by machine you mean something that can calculate with infinite amounts of information, that goes beyond the laws of physics and computer science. And EVEN THEN you can't solve the n-body problem.

 

So a machine given total knowledge of the present state of a deterministic system can't predict the future. That's my understanding.

 

But if you want to imagine a hypothetical future predicting machine called God, that's perfectly ok. Just realize you've gone beyond science into theology and fiction. Perfectly fine for a thought experiment, if it's helpful.

 

In fact in computer science they sometimes imagine devices called oracles that can solve unsolvable problems, and then they reason based on those. So if you want to imaging you have a magic prediction machine, that's perfectly ok. Just be aware that you're reasoning from a hypothetical that doesn't actually exist.

Edited February 14, 2017 by wtf

[Lord Antares]

Thanks for the info.

I'm not sure how there can be a rounding error possible if you assume the machine posseses the exact values of every variable involved.

 

Ah, maybe I understand. Judging solely by the name of the ''n-body'' problem, you might be referring to the fact that some of these numbers will be infinite in nature (after the decimal point) and therefore, unusable in any kind of precise calculation.

 

But I will make the effort of reading and trying to understand the links before I proceed with the discussion.

[wtf]

Thanks for the info.

I'm not sure how there can be a rounding error possible if you assume the machine posseses the exact values of every variable involved.

 

Ah, maybe I understand. Judging solely by the name of the ''n-body'' problem, you might be referring to the fact that some of these numbers will be infinite in nature (after the decimal point) and therefore, unusable in any kind of precise calculation.

 

But I will make the effort of reading and trying to understand the links before I proceed with the discussion.

Two different issues.

 

* You can't store the **EXACT** value of quantities in a finite calculating machine. (Unless you can. Maybe the universe is discrete and finite. Nobody knows).

 

* The n-body problem is a problem in physics. We can't solve the differential equations for the motion of even 3 bodies under mutual gravity, let alone n bodies.

 

But as I say if your argument can be done theoretically by imagining that we have a God machine, that's fine. Your logic can proceed from there.

 

The n-body problem goes back to the time of Newton and is still important today. The Wiki article is worth reading.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem

 

ps -- To make this clear: I have no objection to your assuming a hypothetical prediction machine. Just be aware that such a thing is not physically possible as far as we know. Or at least as far as I know. I could be wrong.

 

pps -- I think in essence you are asking if probability is a measure of the true unknowability of things; or if it's only a measure of human ignorance.

 

For example they've done lab experiments where they show there is nothing at all random about coin flips, once you precisely control the force and angle and direction of the flip mechanically.

 

So I think you are asking a question about the philosophy of probability. Is that right?

Edited February 14, 2017 by wtf

[Lord Antares]

For example they've done lab experiments where they show there is nothing at all random about coin flips, once you precisely control the force and angle and direction of the flip mechanically.

 

So I think you are asking a question about the philosophy of probability. Is that right?

 

Not quite. I myself stated that this is the case in the first post. I don't know why they had to do experiments on that. It's simply inherently true; it must be. I said this applies to both dice and coins.

 

Well, first of all, thank you for the links, that is some good info +1

 

 

ps -- To make this clear: I have no objection to your assuming a hypothetical prediction machine. Just be aware that such a thing is not physically possible as far as we know. Or at least as far as I know. I could be wrong.

 

Yes, I was thinking of a hypotethical prediction machine but I don't know where I would draw the line of its abilities. Because, it this machine were an omniscient ''god'' machine as you put it, then it would be able to predict human thought pattern, reducing all odds to 1 in 1. Thus, the argument would become moot.

 

I guess to elaborate a bit further, I shall rephrase the argument:

 

All physical and natural processes happen logically and invariably. There is a law of action to each and every action of inanimate objects. Thus, a powerful enough machine (my hypothetical machine) would be able to solve and explain all of these due to the fact that they are mathematical, logical and unchanged. Human thought is supposedly a lot different. My question is if it is solvable (if there is a certain algorithm or thought pattern) humans use so that it would be solvable. Because if there isn't, it would not be completely stupid to postulate that this hypothetical machine would be able to reduce the odds of the earth being made the way it is from the big bang to 1 in 1, while it might not even be able to predict how a human would throw dice.

 

Another way to ask a similar question would be: Imagine I have an ubelievably strong machine which can calculate where, when and how the earth will be formed with a 100% accuracy. Would this machine be able to predict the more complex of human choices related to odds? I ask this because humans presumably don't base their decisions on a law or a recurring theme, so it might be less predictable by a machine than any natural occuring process.

 

I realize this is not a strictly mathematical question. It could have been posted in one of the medical science forums as well, but I chose this one.

 

P.S: I realize the N-body is a problem to consider in this scenario, but I hope you see I'm taking a more hypothetical approach. You could even say it's a bit philosophical, although I hate to use that word.

 

All in all, I do think you were partially right when you said I was asking about philosophy of probability. Just partially, though.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Lord Antares

[wtf]

Just for the moment, let me change the subject to simplify it. If my simplification is off base, let me know.

 

Suppose I have a perfect mechanical prediction machine. Whenever I am about to flip a coin, I input all known information about the angle and position of the coin on my thumb, the physical condition of my thumb, exactly how much strength is in my thumb today, etc.

 

When I do this, I can predict the result of the coin flip with perfect accuracy.

 

But one time, my prediction machine is in the shop. It's not available to me. So when I flip a coin, the odds are 50-50. Not because of the inherent unpredictability of the coin toss; but rather because of my own ignorance.

 

That's the core question about probability. Does it reflect something inherent? Or is it just a measure of our ignorance?

 

When it comes to coins, it's pretty clear that probability is only measuring our ignorance. Because they've done lab experiments where they very carefully control the input variables of the coin flip, and they can predict the flip with better than 50-50 results.

 

However when you bring in things lie evolution of the universe and human thought, you're introducing extraneous variables about which we know very little. My sense is that you're asking about whether coin flips are inherently unpredictable, or whether they're only unpredictable due to our ignorance.

 

Is this in line with your thoughts?

Edited February 15, 2017 by wtf

[Lord Antares]

No, your post sums my thoughts up well. I know the unpredictability is due to our ignorance. The only reason why we say coins have a 50/50 chance for landing on either side is because we do not posses the information to calculate how they will land with 100% accuracy.

That's why I made the distinction between practical odds and technical odds in the first post.

 

I consider practical odds to be the ones usually used by humans to decide the chance of something happening (1 in 2 for a coin toss, 1 in 6 for a die roll etc.). I consider technical odds to always be 1 in 1. I don't know if this is something that is taught in mathematics, but surely it must be correct and it is very simple to grasp.

So this is not what I am asking.

 

Maybe it's just a case of me asking an overcomplicated question to which no one knows the answer.

 

Alright, really the simplest way I can re-phrase the question is:

 

All natural and physical processes have technical odds. That is, they can be reduced to a 1 in 1 chance because they are ever-repeating and absolute. Gravity will always act the way it ever did. So gravity is predictable and reducable to a 1 in 1 chance. Is the same true for humans?

 

Can human behaviour and choices be reduced to technical odds? Is it even technically possible to find an algorithm or pattern in their behaviour so you can predict their choices? Humans do not always act the same way as opposed to gravity, which does.

 

Thinking about it, it really may be a case of asking a question no one has the answer to.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Lord Antares

[wtf]

No, your post sums my thoughts up well.

Good, then we are communicating.

 

 

I know the unpredictability is due to our ignorance. The only reason why we say coins have a 50/50 chance for landing on either side is because we do not posses the information to calculate how they will land with 100% accuracy.

Yes and no. All physical theories are approximate. Even if we have machines with infinite capacity and speed, yet if they must be programmed with algorithms that represent CURRENTLY KNOWN physics, they must already be in error from the start, and those errors will accumulate to produce incorrect results.

 

Newtonian gravity refined Aristotelian gravity ("All bodies move toward their natural place"); Einstein refined Newton. Some future genius will refine Einstein.

 

We never know the ultimate laws of the universe, only mathematical approximations. Nor do we have any way to know for sure that there are any "ultimate" laws at all. Maybe it's turtles all the way down.

 

So in a controlled experiment we can predict a coin flip with 99% accuracy or maybe even 99.9999999% accuracy but NEVER with 100% accuracy.

 

And if you are trying to predict the evolution of the universe, that uncertainty must necessarily introduce massive error.

 

We can predict coins but not universes. That's what my simplification is about.

 

I propose that we should discuss coins and not universes, at least for a while. Coin flips are a more clarifying case. We know coins, we don't know the universe.

 

 

 

That's why I made the distinction between practical odds and technical odds in the first post.

Ok. After reading your post some more I don't think I fully understand your definitions.

 

I consider practical odds to be the ones usually used by humans to decide the chance of something happening (1 in 2 for a coin toss, 1 in 6 for a die roll etc.). I consider technical odds to always be 1 in 1. I don't know if this is something that is taught in mathematics, but surely it must be correct and it is very simple to grasp.

No that can't be right. Do you mean that if there are two possibilities that the odds are equal? If I jump off a high place I might fly or I may flop. The odds aren't 50-50. Or are you saying that perhaps I'm only applying what I know about the world? In that case you're right. If I have no prior information at all, I guess everything's 50-50. But we're never that ignorant.

 

I may be missing your point here. What do you mean the "technical odds" are always 1-1? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your definition of technical odds. I thought that referred to the "real" odds based on the laws of the universe.

 

 

Maybe it's just a case of me asking an overcomplicated question to which no one knows the answer.

I think you're asking a simple question about coins and complicating it by making many unproven assumptions about the universe and our ability to model it and compute with those models.

 

The theoretical limitations of measurement and modeling are inherent even in the coin experiment. But with coins the measurement and approximation error is miniscule. When applied to the evolution of the universe, the uncertainty predominates and we can no longer predict.

 

That's why I say, let's just talk about coins. The good question you are asking is whether probability is inherent in the event itself, or if it's merely a measure of our ignorance.

 

In the context of coins, clearly the probability measures our ignorance, since coins are pretty much deterministic.

 

But as far as the universe, who knows. There's a laundry list of issues to be considered. Best not to talk about the universe. That's my opinion. Because to talk about the univers you have to work out your metaphysical beliefs about the universe, whether you think there are any actual laws at all, what the relation of those "real" laws is to our historically contingent theories of physics; and then after all that you still have to solve the problem of calcution error ... you'd simply never get to the end of this conversation and you'd never reach a conclusion.

 

 

 

Alright, really the simplest way I can re-phrase the question is:

 

All natural and physical processes have technical odds.

That's a philosophical assumption about how the world works. That the world logical and ordered, the way it appears to us. Just noting a hidden philosophical assumption in your worldview. And what are technical odds? I'm not clear on your precise meaning.

 

That is, they can be reduced to a 1 in 1 chance because they are ever-repeating and absolute. Gravity will always act the way it ever did. So gravity is predictable and reducable to a 1 in 1 chance.

My understanding is that this is in question, even among physicists. Perhaps the gravitational constant drifts over the years. It's certainly possible. The only observations we have are very nearby in spacetime.

 

Again, you are confusing the universe with our latest contemporary model of the universe. But if there is anything we know about science, it's that no theory is ever final; and that all theories are approximations.

 

The "real" law of gravity, if there even is such a thing, can not possibly be our current theory of gravity any more than it was Newton's or Aristotle's theory of gravity. Our current theory is our best approximation to what we observe. No more and no less.

 

 

 

Is the same true for humans?

 

Can human behaviour and choices be reduced to technical odds?

So ok, this is in my opinion another complication we should leave aside. Just for the moment. I just want to nail down the coins, develop a common understanding around that.

 

If the universe is one complication too far, what can we make of human nature and the human mind? Are our thoughts themselves just physical processes, subject to your deterministic prediction machine? Or are they ... what, exactly? If we are not physicalists, then what other choices are there?

 

Ok this is a deep and wonderful question. But it's not a question about probability theory. The nature of the universe, and the nature of the human mind, must be ruthlessly left aside. At least for the moment. Till we understand the coins.

 

I don't know if human thought is algorithmic, physical, subject to deterministic prediction. It's a great discussion, but one that clouds our conversation here.

 

Coins. Not universes. Not minds. Coins are simple. Universes and minds are way too hard.

 

 

Is it even technically possible to find an algorithm or pattern in their behaviour so you can predict their choices? Humans do not always act the same way as opposed to gravity, which does.

You should split off a thread in the philosophy of mind section.

 

But since I can't resist responding ... I will note that if you claim the human mind does NOT obey the laws of physics ... then what kind of mysticism or spiritualism do you believe in?

 

I find both physicalism AND anti-physicalism equally problematic. If we're ONLY machines, that's bad. And if we're not machines ... well what else is there? Damn good questions I say.

 

Thinking about it, it really may be a case of asking a question no one has the answer to.

Yes yes. But we CAN speak very sensibly about coins.

 

That's my suggestion. Abandon talk about universes and minds. Not because these aren't vital subjects. But because they're not subjects we can really tackle all at once.

 

But the coins, the coins are simple. Coin flips are pretty much deterministic, and the 1/2 probability measures our ignorance.

 

Still I only say "pretty much" deterministic. After all, we really don't know what causes things to happen in the world.

 

Well I apologize if I've let myself ramble but it's all interesting to me

Edited February 15, 2017 by wtf

[Lord Antares]

Oh god. I wrote an elaborate and lenghty post addressing all your points which would, I think, make you understand all I'm saying.

 

I guess I erased it. This is crushing to me. I don't know when I'll muster the will to write it again

 

EDIT: I guess this is my cue not to use the quick reply for long posts. Yes, strange, I know this. I will re-write my full explanation later, I guess

Edited February 15, 2017 by Lord Antares

[Strange]

Forgetting for a moment the prediction aspects, there is a sense in which probability is (or can be) simply a reflection of our knowledge about the world.

 

Imagine you flip a coin and catch it without looking at it. Now you and your friend both know the odds of it being heads are 50:50.

 

But if you look at the coin, the probability for you changes to 0 or 1. But for your friend it is still 0.5.

[Lord Antares]

Yes and no. All physical theories are approximate. Even if we have machines with infinite capacity and speed, yet if they must be programmed with algorithms that represent CURRENTLY KNOWN physics, they must already be in error from the start, and those errors will accumulate to produce incorrect results.

 

Yes, I know. I was considering a hypothetical machine which would know the full and correct laws of physics and mathematics. I don't even know if there is such a thing as knowing something 100%, but for example, it would have the solution to the n-body problem. So it wouldn't be programmed in accordance with human knowledge of physics, but it would rather have an absolute knowledge of physics, if such a thing is possible.

Thus, approximation error would hopefully be eliminated.

 

 

 

I propose that we should discuss coins and not universes, at least for a while. Coin flips are a more clarifying case. We know coins, we don't know the universe.

 

OK, but only until there is a 1 in 1 chance we are understanding each other

 

 

 

I may be missing your point here. What do you mean the "technical odds" are always 1-1? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your definition of technical odds. I thought that referred to the "real" odds based on the laws of the universe.

 

Here is the distinction between technical and practical odds: Practical odds are the ones given due to inability to calculate. So, coin is a 1 in 2 odds and dice are a 1 in 6 odds simply due to our inability to calculate how they will land with a 100% accuracy.

Technical odds are the ones where the result is always calculated to a 100% certainty. Maybe odds is not the appropriate term here because the solution is known, hence no odds are neccessary.

 

Just to clarify a bit further, consider the following hypothetical scenario:

 

There is a goblin sitting in a wooden box. This box has a square hole in one of the sides. The goblin has 10 pieces of paper, each containing a number from 1-10. He picks these on random and displays them through the square hole to me. Now, I have practical 1 in 10 (10%) odds of guessing which number he will display.

However, let's say his box has another hole on the side. If I take a peek through this hole, I can see which number he picks before he displays it through the hole. So, I have a 1 in 1 chance of guessing the number right. This is what I consider the technical odds; the ones I have enough information about to know the solution.

 

This is what I mean by reducing the odds to 1 in 1.

These may be confusing terms, but, again, although I would like to be educated in mathematics, I am not, so I have to make up my own terminology. I hope you understand what I mean by them.

 

 

 

My understanding is that this is in question, even among physicists. Perhaps the gravitational constant drifts over the years. It's certainly possible. The only observations we have are very nearby in spacetime.

 

Yes, but my hypothetical prediction machine would know these. It would always adjust its calculation by the shift in the gravitational constant. The machine doesn't have the lack of knowledge and misunderstandings that the humans do. But more on that later, since we are trying to simplify here.

 

 

 

But since I can't resist responding ... I will note that if you claim the human mind does NOT obey the laws of physics ... then what kind of mysticism or spiritualism do you believe in?

 

No, I am not claiming that in any way. I am simply noting that the laws of the universe are absolute and unchangeable, while human thought isn't.

For example, a slightly abstract analogy:

 

If a human is regularly presented with a choice of 3 different ice-creams, he may alter his choices every time in a seemingly unpredictable pattern, while a machine might choose different ones, but in a predictable and mathematically presentable algorithm. Although the machine is way more advanced than a human in some regards, its choices are of the same predictability as the universe's choices regarding odds. Feel free to substitute ice cream with whatever is more apt.

 

To reiterate, if you give the machine the ability to flip coins, it would do so in an eventually predictable manner, and so the odds of its flips would be reucable to techical (1 in 1 odds), provided we have the ability to calculate the angle, speed, force etc. of its coin flips.

If you give a human a coin to flip, he wouldn't neccessarily do this in a predictable pattern.

 

 

 

Are our thoughts themselves just physical processes, subject to your deterministic prediction machine? Or are they ... what, exactly? If we are not physicalists, then what other choices are there?

 

This is the closest you've come to understanding me. I suppose, in core, the first question could be used as synonimous to some questions I am asking here.

 

 

 

Ok this is a deep and wonderful question. But it's not a question about probability theory.

 

Yes, it's not mathematics per se, nor is it strictly philosophy of the mind. That's why I said I don't know where I would place the thread. It does concern probability theory in the way that it asks the question IF human thought is based on probability.

 

I re-wrote the post hastily before I leave for work, so I'm sure something got left out. Luckily, this is a forum and we can always get back to other questions.

I will re-phrase my questions in a way that they are more mathematical and practical, instead of abstract and possibly philosophical. But first, I need to be sure we're understanding each other.

 

It's strange. When I write posts, they are logical and concise in my mind. They seem really simple. But a lot of the time, members say they do not understand what I'm talking about and it always results in back-and-forth complications like these. Maybe my thoughts are erratic, who knows. I can't tell from my perspective.

 

EDIT: I only call them technical ODDS because the whole term of ''odds'' is relative. In reality, there is nothing probable or improbable about a coin toss. It is always going to land the way it is supposed to land. Our ignorance and incapability to calculate is what makes the coin toss odds-based. I am aware of this.

In the same way, the term random is relative. Nothing is random when you possess enough data.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Lord Antares

[StringJunky]

Oh god. I wrote an elaborate and lenghty post addressing all your points which would, I think, make you understand all I'm saying.

 

I guess I erased it. This is crushing to me. I don't know when I'll muster the will to write it again

 

EDIT: I guess this is my cue not to use the quick reply for long posts. Yes, strange, I know this. I will re-write my full explanation later, I guess

If it happens again, don't write anything more in the box, refresh the page and click back in the box. Look in the bottom left of the box and you might get the option to restore it by clicking the restore link which is the same place. The software autosaves what you write, updating about every minute or two.

Edited February 15, 2017 by StringJunky

[wtf]

Oh god. I wrote an elaborate and lenghty post addressing all your points which would, I think, make you understand all I'm saying.

Same thing happened to Fermat. He had a marvelous proof but lost it in a browser mishap.

 

What I usually do is hit Quote then copy/paste into a text editor, do my writing, then paste back into the browser. On those occasions when I forget to save my text file, my computer invariably crashes, losing my work. One is constantly fighting entropy.

 

====

 

Ok.

 

Yes, I know. I was considering a hypothetical machine which would know the full and correct laws of physics

What makes you think there are any such things?

 

What's the difference betweeen just saying God knows everything that will happen? Your example is equally mystic.

 

 

and mathematics.

The correct laws of math? Absolutely no such thing. Some geometries are Euclidean, some not. Some groups are Abelian, some not. Some set theories are well-founded (no sets can be members of themselves) others not.

 

Math is agnostic regarding truth. Logical consistency and interestingness are all that matter.

 

 

 

 

I don't even know if there is such a thing as knowing something 100%, but for example, it would have the solution to the n-body problem. So it wouldn't be programmed in accordance with human knowledge of physics, but it would rather have an absolute knowledge of physics, if such a thing is possible.

Thus, approximation error would hopefully be eliminated.

Ok fine, God knows everything. I see no reason to dance around your spiritulalism. A machine that doesn't work according to the known laws of machines, programmed by laws that we don't know even exist, that predicts the future.

 

Whatever. Why not abandon all that confusion and just say:

 

"Imagine God knows the future. What's the probability of a coin flip?"

 

Isn't that the sum total of what you're saying here?

 

OK, but only until there is a 1 in 1 chance we are understanding each other

After this last bit I think it's zero. My only point is that we should talk about the coins and stop talking about God machines. You only want to talk about God machines. I can't respond any more to those kinds of speculations.

 

Here is the distinction between technical and practical odds: Practical odds are the ones given due to inability to calculate. So, coin is a 1 in 2 odds and dice are a 1 in 6 odds simply due to our inability to calculate how they will land with a 100% accuracy.

Technical odds are the ones where the result is always calculated to a 100% certainty. Maybe odds is not the appropriate term here because the solution is known, hence no odds are neccessary.

Ok that's clear. Just so that it's also clear that the idea that there actually are true odds is a philosophical assumption. You have no evidence for it beyond a minor amount of local experience near our spacetime coordinates.

 

Just to clarify a bit further, consider the following hypothetical scenario:

 

There is a goblin sitting in a wooden box. This box has a square hole in one of the sides. The goblin has 10 pieces of paper, each containing a number from 1-10. He picks these on random and displays them through the square hole to me. Now, I have practical 1 in 10 (10%) odds of guessing which number he will display.

However, let's say his box has another hole on the side. If I take a peek through this hole, I can see which number he picks before he displays it through the hole. So, I have a 1 in 1 chance of guessing the number right. This is what I consider the technical odds; the ones I have enough information about to know the solution.

A goblin? Whatever. Just say you have a God machine and be done with it. But that assumption already incorporates several unspoken assumptions about the universe.

 

For the several-th and last time I say: Forget about the univers and split off a philosophy thread for that. It's irrelevant.

 

This is what I mean by reducing the odds to 1 in 1.

These may be confusing terms, but, again, although I would like to be educated in mathematics, I am not, so I have to make up my own terminology. I hope you understand what I mean by them.

I undertand you think that the universe is logical and ordered. There's no proof that's true, only local evidence. By local I mean what we've been able to see from earth in the past few thousand years. Very limited sample of observations.

 

 

Yes, but my hypothetical prediction machine would know these. It would always adjust its calculation by the shift in the gravitational constant. The machine doesn't have the lack of knowledge and misunderstandings that the humans do. But more on that later, since we are trying to simplify here.

Ok you have a God machine.

 

No, I am not claiming that in any way. I am simply noting that the laws of the universe are absolute and unchangeable, while human thought isn't.

That contradictory. Your thoughts are a product of your brain which is a physical thing. You can't have it both ways.

 

Why are you insisting on complicating a simple discussion of probability by now claiming that thought is not subject to the laws of physics but everything else is, and in fact not the human-discovered laws of physics but God's physics, for which not a shred of evience exists?

 

 

For example, a slightly abstract analogy:

 

If a human is regularly presented with a choice of 3 different ice-creams, he may alter his choices every time in a seemingly unpredictable pattern, while a machine might choose different ones, but in a predictable and mathematically presentable algorithm. Although the machine is way more advanced than a human in some regards, its choices are of the same predictability as the universe's choices regarding odds. Feel free to substitute ice cream with whatever is more apt.

So thoughts aren't physical? You are contradicting your God theory now.

 

To reiterate, if you give the machine the ability to flip coins, it would do so in an eventually predictable manner, and so the odds of its flips would be reucable to techical (1 in 1 odds), provided we have the ability to calculate the angle, speed, force etc. of its coin flips.

If you give a human a coin to flip, he wouldn't neccessarily do this in a predictable pattern.

This is too far afield for me to comment on anymore. You want to take this to the metaphysical speculation forum.

 

This is the closest you've come to understanding me. I suppose, in core, the first question could be used as synonimous to some questions I am asking here.

I used the example of thoughts to show that it is POINTLESS to drag the theory of mind into this simple discussion of philosophy.

 

You've doubled down by going on about the nature of the universe and the nature of mind, which does not according to you even obey God's laws of the universe. You no longer have a coherent line of argument at all.

 

 

Yes, it's not mathematics per se, nor is it strictly philosophy of the mind. That's why I said I don't know where I would place the thread. It does concern probability theory in the way that it asks the question IF human thought is based on probability.

You are all over the map and refuse to engage with the simple coin example.

 

I re-wrote the post hastily before I leave for work, so I'm sure something got left out. Luckily, this is a forum and we can always get back to other questions.

I will re-phrase my questions in a way that they are more mathematical and practical, instead of abstract and possibly philosophical. But first, I need to be sure we're understanding each other.

You've lost me totally. You only seem to want to engage in idle speculation about God's secret laws of the universe and how the mind doesn't obey them. That's not even philosophy, it's just late night dorm room chatter.

 

It's strange. When I write posts, they are logical and concise in my mind. They seem really simple. But a lot of the time, members say they do not understand what I'm talking about and it always results in back-and-forth complications like these. Maybe my thoughts are erratic, who knows. I can't tell from my perspective.

Writing clearly is hard. In my previous post I did my best to try to get you to focus down on the coin example, and you responded by spinning wildly into God's secret laws and how the mind doesn't obey them. This is not good communication IMO.

 

EDIT: I only call them technical ODDS because the whole term of ''odds'' is relative. In reality, there is nothing probable or improbable about a coin toss. It is always going to land the way it is supposed to land. Our ignorance and incapability to calculate is what makes the coin toss odds-based. I am aware of this.

In the same way, the term random is relative. Nothing is random when you possess enough data.

I'm afraid you've lost me entirely in this response. You haven't got a magic box containing God's law and if you did it wouldn't prove anything about anything.

 

I'm disappointed that what I wrote to you earlier was so unclear as to have prompted you to go off in these unproductive directions. I was trying to get you to focus on the coin, and forget the God machine and your contradictory ideas about how the the universe has absolute laws but the mind doesn't obey them. I feel that I failed totally to make my point earlier and only made things worse.

 

Forgetting for a moment the prediction aspects, there is a sense in which probability is (or can be) simply a reflection of our knowledge about the world.

 

Imagine you flip a coin and catch it without looking at it. Now you and your friend both know the odds of it being heads are 50:50.

 

But if you look at the coin, the probability for you changes to 0 or 1. But for your friend it is still 0.5.

This. You don't need a God machine to discuss this simple and clear idea.

Edited February 15, 2017 by wtf

[Lord Antares]

First of all, the issue of editing posts to add something of value is the possiblity of the other person not realizing that it was edited. I had seen you come to the thread and leave a couple of times and I wondered why you didn't respond. Only now I realize you actually did.

 

That being said, there is an enormous shift in attitude by you. I am quite surprised by it with this last post. Reading through it, I agree that my thoughts and posts were all over the place and most likely pointless, at least from this sub-forum's perspective.

However, your post made me feel bad, especially because I'm a person uneducated in mathematics seeking some clarification. You may not realize that some of the things you pointed out are not neccessarily obvious to someone illiterate in maths.

 

I steered away again from the coin discussions only because you did. I had to respond to your last points regarding matters which do not concern the coin.

 

I am also insulted that you (as far as I've gathered) concluded that I'm taking this is in a spiritual direction or pushing some kind of ''god'' agenda. There is absolutely nothing spiritual about me. I am not a crackpot. My ignorance is exactly that, and any misunderstanding we may have between us stem from it.

 

 

 

So thoughts aren't physical? You are contradicting your God theory now.

 

No. You're oversimplifying it. And once again, there is no ''god theory''. Lose the idea, please.

 

Why are you insisting on complicating a simple discussion of probability by now claiming that thought is not subject to the laws of physics but everything else is, and in fact not the human-discovered laws of physics but God's physics, for which not a shred of evience exists?

 

I am not providing or refuting any sort of god's physics law. I think you got irritated with me and chose to reduce my thoughts to stupid gibberish.

 

 

 

Ok that's clear. Just so that it's also clear that the idea that there actually are true odds is a philosophical assumption. You have no evidence for it beyond a minor amount of local experience near our spacetime coordinates.

 

Surely, by how I defined ''techical odds'' here, this is not a ''philosophical assumption''. This is a matter of definition, but essentialy true.

Please don't assume now I'm trying to introduce some new law of probability here.

 

Also, saying that someone's thoughts are philosophical is almost synonimous with saying they are useless, or rubbish, at least in my view.

 

I'm not sure how to proceed from here.

 

You were being rational and patient in posts prior to this one.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Lord Antares

[wtf]

First of all, the issue of editing posts to add something of value is the possiblity of the other person not realizing that it was edited. I had seen you come to the thread and leave a couple of times and I wondered why you didn't respond. Only now I realize you actually did.

If the same person posts twice in a row, the forum software here merges both posts. I've gotten used to that so I wrote a short post in the morning and a longer one later. There's no way for anyone to know when a post's been substantially edited, and there's no way to write two posts in a row.

 

 

That being said, there is an enormous shift in attitude by you. I am quite surprised by it with this last post. Reading through it, I agree that my thoughts and posts were all over the place and most likely pointless, at least from this sub-forum's perspective.

However, your post made me feel bad, especially because I'm a person uneducated in mathematics seeking some clarification. You may not realize that some of the things you pointed out are not neccessarily obvious to someone illiterate in maths.

Please accept my apology. You're right, my last post was a little crabby. I should have spent more time to figure out how to dial it back.

 

I steered away again from the coin discussions only because you did. I had to respond to your last points regarding matters which do not concern the coin.

You're right. I'm interested in the philosophical aspects so I talked about them while saying we shouldn't talk about them. My bad again.

 

 

I am also insulted that you (as far as I've gathered) concluded that I'm taking this is in a spiritual direction or pushing some kind of ''god'' agenda. There is absolutely nothing spiritual about me. I am not a crackpot. My ignorance is exactly that, and any misunderstanding we may have between us stem from it.

Ok well here I'll stand by what I wrote. I'm using the phrase "God's machine" to summarize what you are saying. That there's a machine, but it doesn't actually obey the laws that physical machines must obey. It's programmed, but not with any physics that we know. It's programmed with the "true" physics of the world, which for all we know doesn't exist at all.

 

So this is a hypothetical magic box that you are using for your argument, and I'm just calling it the God machine. Because that's what it is. It works by no known physics, it can predict the future purfectly, etc. "God" is a perfectly fair characterization of such a device. Not in a religious sense, but in the sense that it is a hypothetical device that is omnipotent and omniscient. the two qualities most often associated with the religious God.

 

I can call it the Magic Box if you like. It's a hypothetical device that transcends all known physical law and can perfectly predict the future. It's a God box.

 

 

 

No. You're oversimplifying it. And once again, there is no ''god theory''. Lose the idea, please.

Am I misunderstnaing your hypothetical device? Works by no known laws of physics, has infinite storage and processing capacity, can perfectly predict the future? Isn't that what you are describing?

 

I am not providing or refuting any sort of god's physics law. I think you got irritated with me and chose to reduce my thoughts to stupid gibberish.

But you did say that. I made the point that even if you have a computer with infinite processing and storage capacity, if it's programmed with the currently known laws of physics, it will be inaccurate from day one. That's almost exactly what I said earlier.

 

And you replied:

 

Yes, I know. I was considering a hypothetical machine which would know the full and correct laws of physics and mathematics.

 

That's what you wrote. God's law. Not God of any particular religion, but the "true" and "ultimate" laws of nature. This is exactly what you wrote. "Full and correct laws of physics." What did you mean by that if I'm mis-characterizing it?

 

If I was crabby it was because by engaging your philosophical ideas I saw that I was encouraging them, when I'm trying to get you to separate out these metaphysical speculations ("... the full and correct laws of physics ...") and stick to simpler things that we can analyze. Coin flips for example.

 

But ok if I was crabby I apologize. But I'm probaby still coming off as crabby. You used the phrase "... the full and correct laws of physics ..." and it's a philosophical assumption to even think there is any such thing. And if these ultimate laws are unknown to us and may forever be unknown to us ... who knows them? God is the name I give to that knower of the ultimate answers. Again not in the religious sense, but what else can you call the knower of the unknowable?

 

Surely, by how I defined ''techical odds'' here, this is not a ''philosophical assumption''. This is a matter of definition, but essentialy true.

Please don't assume now I'm trying to introduce some new law of probability here.

I believe it is a philosophical assumption. The idea that there is any "true" probability of anything. Isn't that the question you're asking?

 

Also, saying that someone's thoughts are philosophical is almost synonimous with saying they are useless, or rubbish, at least in my view.

Oh no, I love philosophy and idle philosophical speculation. I'm just suggesting it should go in the philosophy section.

 

You've raised several philosophical questions. Are there "ultimate" laws of nature, and if so, can they ever be known to us? That's the philosophy of physics. Is the human mind subject to physical law? That question's as old as Descartes. It's philosophical.

 

I don't think philosophy is rubbish. I think it's important and interesting. It's just confusing the issue in this thread, because these are very complicated questions.

 

I'm not sure how to proceed from here.

Well you could accept my apology for being crabby earlier. But if you say that you have a magic machine that knows the ultimate laws of physics, I'm entitled to point out that those are philosophical assumptions. And it's not unfair of me at all to call that a God machine. It's a little like the God particle. It's just a name.

 

You were being rational and patient in posts prior to this one.

Well I don't know what to say. You want to talk about a machine that knows the ultimate laws of physics. And you are unhappy that I'm pointing out that you are making philosophical assumptions about the nature of the world. I don't know any other way to say it.

 

I suppose I may be misunderstanding you.

 

On my part I'm trying to get you to separate out the philosophy of the universe from the much simpler case of flipping a coin. I'm calling out your philosophical assumptions in order to get you to see that you are making philosophical assumptions. The idea that there is a "true" physics is a philosophical assumption, it's not a fact. I'm not saying philosophy is bad. I'm just trying to point out where you are making assumptions about the world that are not known or not proven or not even provable in theory.

 

And coming off crabby, I suppose. I'll plead guilty to that and throw myself on the mercy of the court.

 

I thought Strange really had the last word here with the example of flipping a coin and one person knows the result and the other person doesn't. One person's odds are 100% for whatever the flip is. The other person's odds are 50-50 because of their lack of knowledge. Anything we talk about beyond that is confusing the issue IMO. What do you think about that example?

Edited February 16, 2017 by wtf

[Lord Antares]

It's programmed with the "true" physics of the world, which for all we know doesn't exist at all.

 

 

 

You used the phrase "... the full and correct laws of physics ..." and it's a philosophical assumption to even think there is any such thing

 

I wasn't aware of this, so pointing that out only made me feel stupid. It made me reflect on myself and realize I shouldn't go in-depth talking about things I don't understand. There is a lot I don't know and one cannot even know what he doesn't know. I would like to know a lot more but there is no shortcut to this. Everyone who knows a lot about something has spent a lot of time getting to that position. So I learned some humility.

 

You could then ask ''so why did you assume that there are absolute and correct laws of physics?''. I wasn't aware that there was a second option to begin with. I now realize that this is a philosophical issue, rather than simply a logical one.

 

I thought we agreed on coins so I did not know how to expand upon discussing them. I understood Strange's comment and it's in line with I was thinking. You do realize I understand we can give odds only if we don't know the result, but knowing the result dismisses any odds?

 

 

 

I believe it is a philosophical assumption. The idea that there is any "true" probability of anything. Isn't that the question you're asking?

 

Yes, I believe that's what I was getting at. I never thought of it as a philosophical question. I didn't think it could be.

 

 

 

On my part I'm trying to get you to separate out the philosophy of the universe from the much simpler case of flipping a coin. I'm calling out your philosophical assumptions in order to get you to see that you are making philosophical assumptions.

 

Sure. But I'm not sure what about coins we could discuss anymore so that it was in the spirit of this thread. I think we reached a simple conclusion.

 

 

 

And coming off crabby, I suppose. I'll plead guilty to that and throw myself on the mercy of the court.

 

Nah. I +1'd you for the honest answers, even if they were harsh. Science does not care for demeanor, only truth.

 

 

 

I thought Strange really had the last word here with the example of flipping a coin and one person knows the result and the other person doesn't. One person's odds are 100% for whatever the flip is. The other person's odds are 50-50 because of their lack of knowledge. Anything we talk about beyond that is confusing the issue IMO. What do you think about that example?

 

If you go back to my goblin example, that's exactly what I was saying. Sure, it's silly, but it conveys the point. I don't think it was fair to say I was talking about a god machine in THAT case. I have no objection for the other cases. The example was equivalent to what Strange said.

[wtf]

I wasn't aware of this, so pointing that out only made me feel stupid.

I'm terribly sorry if my exposition had that effect. We're all hopelessly ignorant of so many things.

 

 

 

It made me reflect on myself and realize I shouldn't go in-depth talking about things I don't understand. There is a lot I don't know and one cannot even know what he doesn't know. I would like to know a lot more but there is no shortcut to this. Everyone who knows a lot about something has spent a lot of time getting to that position. So I learned some humility.

I should have mentioned earlier that the point I'm making, that there are not necessarily any laws of nature, is a minority opinion. I'm pretty sure the average working physicist thinks they are discovering the laws of nature, not just inventing prettier lies. My opinion is the extremist alternative one here.

 

You could then ask ''so why did you assume that there are absolute and correct laws of physics?''. I wasn't aware that there was a second option to begin with. I now realize that this is a philosophical issue, rather than simply a logical one.

Ok glad I made my point, even at the expense of some confusion along the way.

 

When the ancients looked at the night sky they saw hunters and bulls and crabs and all the other constellations. Humans see patterns even when there are no patterns. It's certainly fair to say that the constellations in the sky are artifacts of our minds and not anything that's actually there. Orion the hunter is something we made up and has nothing to do with the universe.

 

But now when we see patterns in the data from an atom smasher, how do we know we're not doing the same thing? Perhaps our physics is nothing more than imaginary patterns in our mind and nothing to do with the actual universe as it is.

 

That's my point. But if you asked a physicist, they'd almost certainly say that they trying to discover the actual laws of nature. They'd regard my point as profoundly wrong.

 

In fact my understanding is that the average physicist would not regard their work as worth doing if they couldn't think of themselves as trying to discover the true laws of the universe. I think they're wrong about that. But they haven't asked me, actually.

 

I thought we agreed on coins so I did not know how to expand upon discussing them. I understood Strange's comment and it's in line with I was thinking. You do realize I understand we can give odds only if we don't know the result, but knowing the result dismisses any odds?

I think that's really the answer to the question. Sometimes probability refers to an inherent quality in the thing we're observing; but usually it's more to do with the state of our ignorance.

 

 

 

Yes, I believe that's what I was getting at. I never thought of it as a philosophical question. I didn't think it could be.

It goes back to the old argument about free will versus determinism. Maybe everything that happens in the world, including the fact that I'm writing this post, was determined at the moment of the big bang.

 

Or maybe I have free will. In which case, why do I have free will to choose which words to write, but no free will to decide to fly into the air by flapping my arms?

 

As you asked, why is my body bound by the law of gravity, but my thoughts aren't? Isn't my brain a physical thing?

 

These are good questions and they are matters of philosophy. The philosophers are pretty sharp. It's trendy these days for scientists to mock philosophy, but I think it's the scientists who are actually wrong about the true nature of their enterprise. They're makding useful models, not necessarily discovering ultimate truth.

 

 

Sure. But I'm not sure what about coins we could discuss anymore so that it was in the spirit of this thread. I think we reached a simple conclusion.

If a philosophically-oriented discussion on an Internet forum actually reached a satisfactory conclusion, that is a remarkable achievement

 

Nah. I +1'd you for the honest answers, even if they were harsh. Science does not care for demeanor, only truth.

No, I was crabby. I did and do apologize for that.

 

 

If you go back to my goblin example, that's exactly what I was saying. Sure, it's silly, but it conveys the point. I don't think it was fair to say I was talking about a god machine in THAT case. I have no objection for the other cases. The example was equivalent to what Strange said.

Fair enough.

Edited February 17, 2017 by wtf

[Strange]

That's my point. But if you asked a physicist, they'd almost certainly say that they trying to discover the actual laws of nature.

 

 

I guess a few would. But I think most modern physicists realise they are just building models that work, not trying to find out about "reality" or "actual laws".

 

I came back to this thread because I cam across this article on how different interpretations of probability can unite the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory and cosmological multiverse ideas: http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/88/the-multiple-multiverses-may-be-one-and-the-same

[studiot]

I have been watching this discussion with interest.

So here are some thoughts.

They revolve mainly round the definition of probability or more completely what you understand by the term.

 

Firstly do you know the difference between anterior and posterior probabilities? (Before and after the event)

 

The issue of a probability of 1 or 0 raises special considerations.

 

There are three approaches to probability called, the a priori, the empirical and the subjective approach.

I think you are really meaning to discuss the last one so it is important to avoid the trap of mixing up the meaning given to each approach.

 

For example a probability of 1 means

 

1) In the a priori approach it means the event must always occur.

 

2) In the empirical approach it means that the event has always occurs but does not imply that it will occur in the future

 

3) In the subjective approach it means that we think the event will occur but does not imply that it must occur.

 

This summary includes Bayesian probability, which has been the subject of intense and vitriolic argument for about two centuries, despite its many successes.

[Lord Antares]

Firstly do you know the difference between anterior and posterior probabilities? (Before and after the event)

 

The issue of a probability of 1 or 0 raises special considerations.

 

Ah, so that's what they are called. I called them techical and practical odds. I called the anterior practical, and posterior technical odds.

 

 

3) In the subjective approach it means that we think the event will occur but does not imply that it must occur.

 

Not sure why this approach would exist. Isn't it synonimous with saying ''it's probably going to happen''?

According to these definitions, I was talking about the priori approach.

@Strange - I don't like to discuss paralel universes and such due to their highly speculative and inconclusive nature. I guess that's ironic since the same can be said for some of my questions.

 

@wtf- I didn't reply only because I had nothing to add. We agreed on the basics of probability and we agreed that the other questions are unanswerable.

 

[studiot]

Lord antares post#13

These may be confusing terms, but, again, although I would like to be educated in mathematics, I am not, so I have to make up my own terminology. I hope you understand what I mean by them.

 

 

But once someone points out the correct terminology surely it is most sensible to adopt that?

 

Your obvious deductive powers have led you to explore a subject that has taken a few hundred years human effort to establish a viable basis for this area of mathematics.

By all means extend it further and develop your own terminology there.

But please don’t start by introducing unconventional usage as fact, as you did in post#1.

 

You say you would like to be educated in mathematics so I am quite taken aback by your response to my post#21 which was offering the beginnings of some small help towards this goal.

 

 

Lord Antares post#22

 

According to these definitions, I was talking about the priori approach.

 

 

Actually, no you weren’t. and the correct phrase is ‘a priori’.

 

Further Strange’s incorrect analysis in post#12 complicates this.

 

 

Strange post#12

Imagine you flip a coin and catch it without looking at it. Now you and your friend both know the odds of it being heads are 50:50.

But if you look at the coin, the probability for you changes to 0 or 1. But for your friend it is still 0.5.

 

 

The a priori probability cannot ever alter. So for the coin toss it is still 0.5 even after you have looked.

What has changed by reporting a probability of 1 is the event the probability is reported for.

The actual outcome of an experiment is independent of the probability of any particular possibility.

 

There are other considerations concerning your proposed perfect mechanical universe, and prediction machine.

How far are you prepared to analyse?

Again referring to the coin experiment.

Let us suppose you have set up your perfect coin tosser.

At the moment of tossing there is an earth tremor.

Or the sun goes nova

Or your machine tosses and catches correctly, but you make a mistake when you read the result.

 

How do these possibilities (amongst others) affect you probabilities?

 

 

Lord Antares post#22

 

Not sure why this approach would exist. Isn't it synonimous with saying ''it's probably going to happen''?

 

 

I really thought you were interested in how human subjectivity is usefully brought into the evaluation of probabilities.

 

For instance if there have been zero events of a particular nature, an a priori probability cannot be assigned.

 

But it may be very desirable to do so.

 

The Bookies do this all the time.

Or what is the probability that a nuclear missile will be fired at New York, by accident?

 

In many branches of engineering practice we operate what is known as ‘limit state theory’.

This involves combining probabilities arising from several factors to effect safe and efficient designs and assessments.

 

All of these are interesting subjects in their own right.

 

So over to you if you want to discuss them properly.

Edited February 21, 2017 by studiot

[Lord Antares]

Hey studiot. I'm not sure why the attitude. I thanked you for providing the correct terminology. I made no unfounded claims. Maybe you misunderstood my intent?

 

 

But once someone points out the correct terminology surely it is most sensible to adopt that?

 

Of course. When I said:

 

Ah, so that's what they are called. I called them techical and practical odds. I called the anterior practical, and posterior technical odds.

 

I merely wanted to further clarify what I meant. I did not say that my definitions are the ones to be used.

 

 

 

Your obvious deductive powers have led you to explore a subject that has taken a few hundred years human effort to establish a viable basis for this area of mathematics.

By all means extend it further and develop your own terminology there.

 

Hey hey. No need for such sarcasm. I did not make any statements that change the rules of mathematics. I just wanted to elaborate my stance.

 

 

 

But please don’t start by introducing unconventional usage as fact, as you did in post#1.

 

But you only introduced to me the correct usage in post #21. Surely, you must understand that I couldn't have gone back in time and used the correct one.

 

 

 

I really thought you were interested in how human subjectivity is usefully brought into the evaluation of probabilities.

 

 

But I am. I just said I don't understand it. Shouldn't I admit that instead of proceeding to discuss something that is not clear to me?

 

I like you so I will give you the benefit of the doubt of assuming that you misunderstood my intentions.

[studiot]

Attitude? Sarcasm?

 

I was actually offering you a compliment that you had made good headway in a broad and difficult subject, without formal training.

 

However you had reached an stumbling block, which I identify as mixing up the fundamental difference between before and after the event.

 

I might warn you that some of the statistics/probability terminology is described as "an unfortunate historical accident" in the main Oxford University Textbook at introductory level.

 

So for example

 

Sample space, often denoted by S, is the set of all possible outcomes of an experiment.

Note the use of the word sample in the definitions is an unfortunate historical accident - it does not refer to a sample of observations

 

Another term of importance is 'relative', which has a particular meaning in probability, different from the one you have used in this thread.

 

I did ask if you have a working definition of probability, because this is important, as well as offering many relevant areas/subject heading for discussion.

 

As far as I can tell you have not responded to/ignored all of them.

 

This is a particular shame as this is the only thread with any serious technical content in the first twenty on the current/recent list.

 

So instead of feeling insulted and lashing out, why not try some dialog, questions and answers directed at the substance of each others' posts?