It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Does probability really exist?

page: 3
4
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:15 AM

Very true.. A human uses questions to work.. via observation of his/her own reality.

Without the function to use "chaos" you would never get both.

The mind is a reflection of the universe as i have told the OP be for, tho granted he did not understand what i was saying...

Being good at math is one thing OP being able to understand it is another

Quick math lesson for you OP

If LIFE tails and heads is NO life what is the probabilit of life being IN the universe ?

and if your logic is in order you should that answer by now.

Why? Because you are here my friend "and humans" are NOT life

Life is the very THING that made you and my cat and the tree and the dog.

So why not aliens? Not mathmaticaly possible? Well

The probiblity of you asking about life on other planets is MORE than there being NO aliens

because the argument is indeed flawed
basic math, and on another note if you think they can not travel to earth, we are very young compared to our peers..

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:25 AM

And that my friend is why aliens are real.

Gotta love math aint cha!

I never said aliens were not real or don't exist. What does that even have to do with the quote you replied to?

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:33 AM

This is why it's one of the closest things we have to randomness because a person has the capability of being arbitrary (non-deterministic) more so than any other thing we observe.

Perhaps, but I personally think perhaps not. Non-determinism requires the assumption that previous events have no effect on present conditions in my opinion.

Like, having free will to decide what to eat for breakfast.

You lay out three choices: toast, cereal,or bacon and eggs

It's already determined that your going to eat breakfast or not depending upon the variable of hunger. Your either hungry or not and thus choose accordingly.

OK, so we're hungry and now have seemingly three choices to freely choose from.

Well, how hungry are you, a little hungry so choose the toast?

hungry enough to need something a little more heavier, so choose the cereal?

Starving so eat the bacon and eggs?

Despite having three choices, the choice itself was determined by the variable of how hungry you were when you woke up. At least this is how I view it.

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:35 AM

Just pointing out for people who have a total lack of math

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:37 AM

Perhaps, but I personally think perhaps not. Non-determinism requires the assumption that previous events have no effect on present conditions in my opinion.

But you are the one who does not understand the topic? so you wanted help???

and the part about food "what to have" is negated by the very fact you are alive?

Did you have a choice to be born?

Despite having three choices, the choice itself was determined by the variable of how hungry you were when you woke up. At least this is how I view it.

Nope, wrong.. You do indeed have a choice of what to eat but the choice of Not eating becomes a problem yes?

Its not the fact you are hungry its the fact its a requirement for staying alive.

Now if you did not need to eat then you would have no reason to choose would you?

point in being is that YOU are alive and DID not have a choice in this matter

NO living BEING on this planet HAD a choice.. NONE

who made that choice? GOD? who knows... but the choice was never yours, free will comes with only one snag and that is life its self! all the rest of the choices you make are based on ones own enviroment.

its called self determination
you are free to do as you please with the rule of life its self.

ect ect ect.. i did tell you my math is better than my typing

[edit on 15-12-2009 by 13579]

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:42 AM

random enough

Yes, and I think that's how the "objective probability" perspective soldiers on so well. The fit with what is observed is "good enough."

There is a lovely account on the border between objectivism and subjectivism carved out by a physicist named Jaynes. You build your model of whatever by accounting for the factors you think are important, and fill in the rest with a probability distribution (the one "closest to" uniform and independent trials possible, given the factors you have accounted for).

Your model will exhibit a certain amount of quality: it will agree with experiment to a certain extent, and be satisfactory for a while (the time it takes for all those things you didn't take into account, and which don't really "cancel each other out," to add up to a definitely observed error).

At which point, you tune up your model, and do it all over again, now taking more into account than you did before. Presumably, this new model agrees with experiment better than the old one, and takes even longer for the neglected-but-not-negligible stuff to catch up with it.

And when are you done with tinkering? Maybe never. But if your latest model holds up for several lifetimes, then it is probably good enough for most purposes. Like Newton's physics... profoundly wrong, but you can't kill it with a stick.

But is not all pragmatism. Newton's physics provided the background against which all those pesky things he ignored (or got wrong) could reveal themselves.

There is real learning about physical reality there: why is something that works so well still not correct? What additional factors need to be taken into account? Answering such questions is not "mechanical." It takes genuine novel scientific work to carry out the plan.

So far as I can see, you never get an answer from this system as to what probability "really is," nor what "the probability" of any event takes on as a value. Probability is only the molasses which holds the current model together, and fills in its gaps.

So, that is apt to be utterly unsatisfactory to sirnex, but is more than good enough to furnish a confident basis on which to operate a casino.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by eight bits]

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:46 AM

Just pointing out for people who have a total lack of math

With a straw man that doesn't even explain anything about the topic at hand and a subject that was never even denied?

But you are the one who does not understand the topic? so you wanted help???

and the part about food "what to have" is negated by the very fact you are alive?

Are you asking or telling? If asking, then in my opinion yes, the choice is negated as the act of being alive invariably requires you to consume food to stay alive.

Did you have a choice to be born?

Now, doesn't such a question as that kind of disprove free will?

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:47 AM
reply to post by eight bits

ONLY because they prevent you from using a machine to toss your dice for you. The only way dice games have ANY probability is through the lack of ability in the thrower. Any person that could throw dice reliably would be removed and beaten for ruining the profits of a casino.

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Wertdagf

They only appear non deterministic because your ignorant to the processes within their minds. We are now breaking down this barrier of ignonrance.

havent you seen the new programs that predict thoughts and words with brain activity?

I've read some of the more recent studies that predict future actions by about a second or two. Though I see this as similar to computer latency. A user performs some input, resulting in an action calling out to long term memory, acting on the data through the CPU, and eventually returning the result to an output device.

To assume that flow-control going on in the brain is entirely predetermined by past actions is extremely simplistic. Absolutely we as humans have "templates" for our behavior and therefore we can be reliably predicted to a large degree.

Hell this is what advertising firms are supposed to do with all the data that's collected about consumers through POS terminals and from what I've seen the models that have been put together are really quite impressive.

But getting back to the point. Even if I could read your brain perfectly, meaning collecting all memories, and observing each decision that you make each second you'd still have the ability to alter your flow-control similar to an FPGA. So, yes, my ability to predict your actions gets better as I have access to all data about you, but there's still an error margin simply because humans have the capability to be arbitrary.

If you doubt this do something you would never do, doesn't have to be now, whenever you like. When you do this you'll violate all known data as it pertains to you as an individual.

In this scenario there are no past actions to base the prediction off of and even if I was reading your brain I would only know 2 seconds in advance that you were about to do something unusual because it was at that point the decision was made. To completely predict you I'd have to have access to not only the state of your brain but every other system in your body that has autonomous control. Even then though I'd still only have maybe, at best, an extra second or two to predict your actions.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Xtraeme]

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:49 AM
reply to post by eight bits

and all objectivity its self comes from the missing factor in all mathmatical equations

YOU

without you nothing is in fact possible,, no question no answer, as humans we make the outcome possible.

as shown by the higgs bosson calcualtion, We are the higgs bosson partical

Why? well we connect both matter and energy via the observation of it

so basic i lol my pants off "mind you im good at math" ; )

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:51 AM

"But getting back to the point. Even if I could read your brain perfectly, meaning collecting all memories, and observing each decision that you make each second you still have the ability to alter your flow-control similar to an FPGA. So, yes, my ability to predict your actions gets better as I have access to all data about you, but there's still an error margin simply because humans have the capability to be arbitrary."

You can give me no example where this is possible.... all you can do is higlighr your own, or our, ignorance of the variables. There is no magic place were freewill appears.....

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:52 AM

Nope, wrong.. You do indeed have a choice of what to eat but the choice of Not eating becomes a problem yes?

Only if we ignore a host of variables.

Its not the fact you are hungry its the fact its a requirement for staying alive.

I've never met a person who says "Ah damn, I gotta eat something because it's a requirement to stay alive."

Now if you did not need to eat then you would have no reason to choose would you?

the act of not eating is determined by the event of deciding not to eat, but how was that determined to begin with? What variable determined that?

point in being is that YOU are alive and DID not have a choice in this matter

NO living BEING on this planet HAD a choice.. NONE

who made that choice? GOD? who knows... but the choice was never yours, free will comes with only one snag and that is life its self! all the rest of the choices you make are based on ones own enviroment.

its called self determination you are free to do as you please with the rule of life its self.

ect ect ect.. i did tell you my math is better than my typing

And all this is an example of where I point out that non-determinism requires the assumption that previous events have no effect on present conditions.

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:56 AM

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by eight bits

and all objectivity its self comes from the missing factor in all mathmatical equations

YOU

without you nothing is in fact possible,, no question no answer, as humans we make the outcome possible.

as shown by the higgs bosson calcualtion, We are the higgs bosson partical

Why? well we connect both matter and energy via the observation of it

so basic i lol my pants off "mind you im good at math" ; )

This is purely your opinion. It is of my opinion that it's the Aliens from Tau Ceti. I would rather let them be the arrogant narcissists.

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:17 AM

ONLY because they prevent you from using a machine to toss your dice for you. The only way dice games have ANY probability is through the lack of ability in the thrower. Any person that could throw dice reliably would be removed and beaten for ruining the profits of a casino.

I am unsure what point of mine this addresses.

The casino itself furnishes "machines to toss your dice for you," literally and figuratively, in some games. They nevertheless feel that probability is well-defined in roulette, or wheel of fortune, keno, ... and have the profits to show for it.

Traditionally, craps players are allowed to toss dice without a cup in many establishments, and certainly in pick-up games. The casino's profit is not a function of how accurate you are, but how much diversity of opinion there is among the bettors at the table.

So, if somebody had "perfect control," then they would do well to use it to compose little soap operas that attracted bettors to the table, and impelled them to leave their money there. If you were a jerk about it, and just proceeded to roll sevens seriatim, then you would be asked to leave. (Not beaten, and long before you ruined anybody's profits.)

The casino doesn't care how much of other people's money you take home, so long as it gets its own taste. Pigs get slaughtered, but rain makers are always welcome.

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:17 AM

Originally posted by Wertdagf

You can give me no example where this is possible.... all you can do is higlighr your own, or our, ignorance of the variables. There is no magic place were freewill appears.....

Hey, I'm not trying to attack anyone's beliefs here, you're free to think and/or believe that all events are predetermined down to and including every action you'll ever make to the final conclusion of the universe. I'm simply saying based on working with cryptography and dealing with randomness batteries (i.e. DIEHARD) that the one thing that seems to uniformly come up as noise are sentient actions (this is why we use human input as a seed for encryption).

Hell I don't even believe radioactive decay (which is considered top of the line for TRNGs) is random primarily because we can define a probability for it. As I said before it's really very easy to define an empirical test to examine the notion of "free will."

Do something you would never do. It's really that easy.

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:37 AM

As I said before it's really very easy to define an empirical test to examine the notion of "free will."

Do something you would never do. It's really that easy.

Is it really just that easy though? Would he normally have decided to do something he normally never does if he were never told that the act of doing something he would never do? Say he does now do something he normally would never do, that act is now predetermined by following out an "experiment" that you proposed he should carry out.

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:41 AM

was thinking about probabilities the other day, especially the coin example where a coin has a fifty/fifty probability of landing on either heads or tails; But then it dawned upon me that this probability is hampered right from the beginning. The fifty/fifty probability only takes into account two variables, that being the heads side and the tails side. This ignores all other variables, such as force of the flip, wind speed and direction, gravitational differences if flipped at various heights on the planet. I can think of a bunch of different variables that play a huge effect on the so called probability of a coin landing on one of two sides.

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:43 AM

narcissists.

Im guessing this apart from insulting people is your fav word?

It is not my fault you do not grasp math is it??

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:47 AM

I'm not really in the mood for more of your straw men. If you wish to discuss the topic at hand with me, then by all means do so. If your going to be an arrogant prick, then I won't play nice with you.

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:47 AM

Well in fact its not. its a mathmatical.

you have a problem with math, and understanding it, Granted you can type but i am better at math than you are.

its that simple .. So if you wish to call me names for helping understand the basics of why we have probibilty that you have a hard time grasping in "your opinion" then fine.

being a snarky kid and the unwillingless to listen well that was your "choice" was it not? more so when WE was trying to help.

new topics

top topics

4