It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I did a search on probability theory itself :
Probability theory is the branch of mathematics concerned with analysis of random phenomena.
On the macro-scale objects do not deviate. If I throw a ball up in the air I can reliably track the motion both forward and backwards in time. The only thing that causes deviation is choice. I can choose to let the ball fall to the ground or attempt to do something else like swat it away, but without my involvement the state can be perfectly predicted.
The assertion that it's physically impossible for 100% certainty should be viewed as a mathematical limit. Sometimes we approach so close the two are virtually the same despite their still being an underlying constraint that makes it hold 100% of the time. Removing the constraint it might instead represent 99.9999999999999999...% accuracy rounded up, which still presents enough accuracy to say it's reliably true.
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Xtraeme
On the macro-scale objects do not deviate. If I throw a ball up in the air I can reliably track the motion both forward and backwards in time. The only thing that causes deviation is choice. I can choose to let the ball fall to the ground or attempt to do something else like swat it away, but without my involvement the state can be perfectly predicted.
I suppose from a personal involvement in causing a certain outcome, then yes choice can have a hand at it, but even with the coin toss, a gust of wind wouldn't be a personal conscious choice of either me or the wind itself.
I personally am starting to become of the opinion that these things are more statistical occurrences than they are probabilistic occurrences. The chances or probability of the coin landing on one of two sides as being fifty/fifty is skewed by ignoring all other variable's, but the statistical outcome measured would be a very different thing in my opinion.
Originally posted by sirnex
Does probability really exist?
Consider if life had never developed in the universe (not even microbial) then all wind would be the result of change in air pressure due to temperature differentials, planetary disturbances like volcanic eruptions, and outside forces affecting planetary momentum.
If this were the case then every single wind vector field can be seen of as completely deterministic and set in motion at the onset of the universe due to conservation of energy & momentum.
Statistical analysis reinforces the probabilistic interpretation. Remember probability doesn't mean random. I have the same odds of getting a royal flush even if I have savant-like card counting abilities. Just because I know the state of the cards doesn't change the odds of me getting that hand.
Though you're right if we ignore a variable that means our system will become greatly skewed over many iterations because it doesn't accurately account for all probable outcomes (i.e. coin-toss model assuming perfect two-faced coin /w no edge to land on).
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Xtraeme
Consider if life had never developed in the universe (not even microbial) then all wind would be the result of change in air pressure due to temperature differentials, planetary disturbances like volcanic eruptions, ...
If this were the case then every single wind vector field can be seen of as completely deterministic and set in motion at the onset of the universe ...
If this were the case, then wouldn't that disprove probabilities?
relative frequency with which an event occurs or is likely to occur.
Statistical analysis reinforces the probabilistic interpretation. Remember probability doesn't mean random. I have the same odds of getting a royal flush even if I have savant-like card counting abilities. Just because I know the state of the cards doesn't change the odds of me getting that hand.
I agree with you there to a point, but the probability it getting those same odds is somewhat skewed because the deck is never shuffled exactly the same way, at least in my opinion. While there is 52 cards and say, four players, so only so many probable outcomes, this ignores the variable of shuffling being different in each round.
There are two facts about the distribution of prime numbers of which I hope to convince you so overwhelmingly that they will be permanently engraved in your hearts. The first is that, despite their simple definition and role as the building blocks of the natural numbers, the prime numbers grow like weeds among the natural numbers, seeming to obey no other law than that of chance, and nobody can predict where the next one will sprout. The second fact is even more astonishing, for it states just the opposite: that the prime numbers exhibit stunning regularity, that there are laws governing their behavior, and that they obey these laws with almost military precision" (Havil 2003, p. 171).
If the probabilistic nature is skewed because not all variables are taken into account, then what does this say of probability? I think this is the biggest problem I'm having right now.
Though you're right if we ignore a variable that means our system will become greatly skewed over many iterations because it doesn't accurately account for all probable outcomes (i.e. coin-toss model assuming perfect two-faced coin /w no edge to land on).
We've developed the theory of a probabilistic nature of reality, but only through purposefully ignoring all other variables that may have an effect on supposed probabilities. If we can't be bothered to take all variables into account, then how can we convey an accurate depiction of reality itself?
Originally posted by eight bits
"Objective probability" is another way it could be real. And that's harder to decide, because WTF is randomness supposed to be, anyway?
I personally don't believe in randomness.
Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Xtraeme
I think when people are to stupid or ignorant to understand all of the variables then they start throwing out words like choice and free will.
This was just a quick thought, perhaps I just don't understand probabilities as well as I thought I did. If not, then can someone explain it to me a little better so I can learn more.
Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Xtraeme
SO you have an example of a coin flip... yet everyone rushes to say intelligent life is MAGIC.
I think when people are to stupid or ignorant to understand all of the variables then they start throwing out words like choice and free will.
Still reading about it a little more, but on randomness, the reason I don't personally subscribe to anything being random is because in order for us to consider a random event as random, we have to personally ignore all extant causes that eventually led to that event.