Does probability really exist?

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

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.

That's a reasonable question, but consider if he doesn't ever perform the action then any model that would be designed to look for this one-off would be trying to quantify the event happening because the expectation is present. Really what we're evaluating is the following recursive process,

"Bob knows I'm going to place Heads. So I'll put down Tails, but because Bob is smart he knows I'd put down Tails. So I'll use Heads. But because Bob knows I'm smart he'd know I'd know ..."

You get the idea. At a certain point an element is unpredictable and therefore for humans it becomes either a random action or is resolved through a choice.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by sirnex


I was descusing the topic? Not once did i call you a name or in fact go off topic? I mearly pointed out you flaw in thinking when it came to the topic as you did ask for some understanding of it coreect?

Topic : Does probability really Exist : Yes it does

I gave a logical reason as to why it does, yet you question it ? and call me an arggant xxxx ??

are you that imature?

reply to post by 13579

I was descusing the topic? Not once did i call you a name or in fact go off topic? I mearly pointed out you flaw in thinking when it came to the topic as you did ask for some understanding of it coreect?

You never touched my problem of variables in determining probabilities.

Topic : Does probability really Exist : Yes it does

I asked for an explanation, not a statement.

or in fact go off topic

Your second post.

I gave a logical reason as to why it does, yet you question it ? and call me an arggant xxxx ??

You gave no such logical reason nor explanation, you merely made a statement that never touched upon my issue of ignoring variables.

are you that imature?

You get what you put into the conversation.

reply to post by sirnex

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

no it does not, Because people mix up free will with being alive..

Life > Human > Free will "within reason depending on paramters"

You see once you are "alive" your reality becomes somewhat like a factal.. in that all choices are possible but still based on rules "being here"

So lets look at flipping a coin again because its the bases of the topic

and here are some factors also..

Why flip a coin? Because its a simple way to show logic.. what is logic?

Logic is a outcome that can be predicted and equated in reason and reality as we are "logical beings"

Another factor

why does a butterfly have 2 wings? It was the logical outcome of the system we was made by "logic"

The logical outcome of flipping a 2 sided coin will always be 50/50 no matter what, Yes the paramters of "flipping" the coin can come into play but then you change the paramter of or the use of probibilty it self

what would happen if i flipped a coin in space?

pretty long odds on getting an outcome dont you think? IF ANY

im a lot smarter than you think kiddo

reply to post by sirnex

You never touched my problem of variables in determining probabilities.

Because you make them that is why? You asked about flipping a coin?

Its a way to show logical paramters of mathmatical principles.. or dont you get that part?

Its not about the coin its about MATH.. once you start thinking about the coin then the math changes and so do the paramters i showed you in my other post.

If i flip a coin in space what side does it land on?

You see? You change it by the very nature of it.

flipping a coin on earth? well thats down to the very question of why are you flipping the coin in the first place.

reply to post by sirnex


By calling me an arrogant xxxx?

I will take that as a compliment

[edit on 15-12-2009 by 13579]

reply to post by 13579

no it does not, Because people mix up free will with being alive..

If your not alive, then there would be no free will, so it is kind of a requirement is it not?

You see once you are "alive" your reality becomes somewhat like a factal.. in that all choices are possible but still based on rules "being here"

Since when?

So lets look at flipping a coin again because its the bases of the topic

and here are some factors also..

Why flip a coin? Because its a simple way to show logic.. what is logic?

Logic is a outcome that can be predicted and equated in reason and reality as we are "logical beings"

This doesn't explain the variable of say, force in toss.

If I have the coin with the heads side up and I put little force into the toss, would the probabilistic outcome be the same if that variable changed and the force became greater with each subsequent toss? Is that variable taken into account or not? What if the force and frequency was varied itself throughout the experiment, would that affect the probabilistic outcome compared to one iteration where the force and all other variables were constant?

If the variables affect the probability outcome of each iteration of the experiment, then how can that probability still be 50/50 as that implies just two variables being each side of the coin?

what would happen if i flipped a coin in space?

pretty long odds on getting an outcome dont you think? IF ANY

Good example for the problem at hand in my opinion. As there would be no side in space for the coin to land on, what is the probability then? That new variable would need to be taken into account as you imply it would be. Same coin, different variable, different outcome that prevents a 50/50 probability as there would be nothing to finalize that landing of one side.

why does a butterfly have 2 wings? It was the logical outcome of the system we was made by "logic"

I think you need to explain that better, please.

The logical outcome of flipping a 2 sided coin will always be 50/50 no matter what, Yes the paramters of "flipping" the coin can come into play but then you change the paramter of or the use of probibilty it self

How would it always be 50/50 though if new variables change the parameters of the experiment and thus it's outcome?

Originally posted by eight bits
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).

...

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.

Huh, you piqued my interest. I gather you're referring to E. T. Jaynes? Do you remember which paper / book he originally discussed this in? Sounds like he's worth reading.

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.

You couldn't have worded this better!

Over the last several years I've taken a perverse interest in how things can be wrong but right (as you alluded to with Newton). When I started to play around with genetic programming and fuzzy state machines I became much more comfortable with the notion that everything is really a probability distribution with boolean states representing the extreme end-points.

The longer I observe this the more it seems like there's always some remainder left to solve for. This makes me seriously think that the reason we turn up infinity for almost every calculation performed in modern physics is because that's the answer. Meaning it may in fact be "elephants all the way down" in which case "good enough" calculations are probably the best we can hope for.

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.

Awhile back I attempted to further model the idea of head / tails coin-flips as a three-state system:

player, dealer, nature

Each state had two components:

control & knowledge

For further granularity I added the notion of fair or unfair behavior. Assuming nature is inherently fair. Fair being defined as changing the odds from the default state of the number of faces as provided by the coin.

This was the result:


Basically even if a person has complete control (still affording the dealer free will) the player will never be able to manipulate the outcome without advance knowledge of the face of a card / coin.

This seems to give us a glimmer of what an ontology of probability might look like. Choice can be seen as control. Whereas foreknowledge, when coupled with choice, can be seen of as not playing fairly. "Randomness" then being defined as the fairest outcome (50:50).

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by sirnex

If your not alive, then there would be no free will, so it is kind of a requirement is it not?

Yes and no

Since when

because you are bound by being alive

This doesn't explain the variable of say, force in toss.

Does not require one as the force will always be the same, thats why we have gravity.

If I have the coin with the heads side up and I put little force into the toss, would the probabilistic outcome be the same if that variable changed and the force became greater with each subsequent toss? Is that variable taken into account or not? What if the force and frequency was varied itself throughout the experiment, would that affect the probabilistic outcome compared to one iteration where the force and all other variables were constant?

That would make the argument invalid as you would be trying to "unbalance the outcome to begin with to prove a point"

Good example for the problem at hand in my opinion. As there would be no side in space for the coin to land on, what is the probability then? That new variable would need to be taken into account as you imply it would be. Same coin, different variable, different outcome that prevents a 50/50 probability as there would be nothing to finalize that landing of one side.

The problem is i REMOVED probibilty from the equation

you can not flip cions in space ; )

I think you need to explain that better, please.

Logic is inherently and cosimcaly a given.. Ok when you do 1+1=2 that is a logical math equation ok? now doing that is the same as nature making a butterfly with 2 wings or say the sun or i dunno human with 2 arms.. its the most "logical" outcome thats why we have shapes its based on LOGIC.. because logic is a word we use to describe things we understand and that we are made from/by ect..

1+1=3 on the other hand is not logical but it does have a meaning in chaos, that is based on scale "quantom physics" ect..

How would it always be 50/50 though if new variables change the parameters of the experiment and thus it's outcome?

Because the paramarters you are dealing with is a coin with 2 sides being fliped.

If if fliped a dice what is the probiblity of it landing on a 6? ; )

you see it all changes not because of the force or any outside thing its more to do with the sides of the object not so much the forces.

as i said if you start to change the method in what you wish to apply probiblity aka flipping in space the math totay changes so you can not appply the given math to the given problem at hand.

its a basic way how to predict or work out an outcome

its a sum basicaly. dont think to deep into it.

Probiblity is real and can be used in many ways as pointed out by the fellow

Black jack is a good example 2 colours red and black ; )

if you start to focus on the suite it makes the probiblity of the next card harder to work out as you just added another veriable to the equation, hearts, dimonds, ect ect

Hope that helped

Huh, you piqued my interest. I gather you're referring to E. T. Jaynes? Do you remember which paper / book he originally discussed this in? Sounds like he's worth reading.

I made a Jaynes souffle. To the (limited) extent that I had a specific work of his in mind, it was this one

bayes.wustl.edu...

from the Jaynes site maintained by Larry Bretthorst:

bayes.wustl.edu...

Looking quickly at what you posted, maybe you would be interested in Glenn Shafer and Vladimir Vovk's stuff, previewed here:

www.probabilityandfinance.com...

if you haven't already delved into that.

reply to post by 13579

Yes and no

Can you explain your answers rather than state your answers.

because you are bound by being alive

Can you explain your answers rather than state your answers.

Does not require one as the force will always be the same, thats why we have gravity.

While gravity would be constant if all iterations of the experiment are done in the same spot, gravity around the planet is variable. This still does not take into account the variable of the force of the toss, a greater force in toss allows for the coin to rotate for a longer period of time before it lands on a side.

That would make the argument invalid as you would be trying to "unbalance the outcome to begin with to prove a point"

When considering a possible probabilistic nature of reality, I don't think this stance would be invalid as not all thing in nature are the same. If we just simply generalize the coin while ignoring all extant variables of different iterations of the same experiment, then how is this invalidating or purposefully unbalancing? If the coin toss experiment truly is a 50/50 probability, then it would remain as such irregardless of any variables. Any outside influence would need to be taken into account, not just the two side's of the coin as they are not the only variable in the equation.

The problem is i REMOVED probibilty from the equation

you can not flip cions in space ; )

You certainly can, but they have no place to land or it would be a very long time before one side 'landed' against something physical.

Logic is inherently and cosimcaly a given.. Ok when you do 1+1=2 that is a logical math equation ok? now doing that is the same as nature making a butterfly with 2 wings or say the sun or i dunno human with 2 arms.. its the most "logical" outcome thats why we have shapes its based on LOGIC.. because logic is a word we use to describe things we understand and that we are made from/by ect..

1+1=3 on the other hand is not logical but it does have a meaning in chaos, that is based on scale "quantom physics" ect..

Can you explain it better and in context of probability? I'm having trouble finding the correlation, not the understanding.

Because the paramarters you are dealing with is a coin with 2 sides being fliped.

So probability works by ignoring all other variables except the two sides of the coin?

If if fliped a dice what is the probiblity of it landing on a 6? ; )

you see it all changes not because of the force or any outside thing its more to do with the sides of the object not so much the forces.

as i said if you start to change the method in what you wish to apply probiblity aka flipping in space the math totay changes so you can not appply the given math to the given problem at hand.

its a basic way how to predict or work out an outcome

its a sum basicaly. dont think to deep into it.

Probiblity is real and can be used in many ways as pointed out by the fellow

Black jack is a good example 2 colours red and black ; )

if you start to focus on the suite it makes the probiblity of the next card harder to work out as you just added another veriable to the equation, hearts, dimonds, ect ect

Hope that helped

I just can't wrap my head around not taking all variables into account.

reply to post by eight bits


Ahh thank you for your post / link

This was taken from the very first page at the top

However, an ambiguity remains in setting up a prior on a continuous parameter space because the results lack invariance
under a change of parameter; thus a further principle is needed.

Hence why i used flipping a coin in space..

Thank you for giving me a nice point of refrence to use.

Jus want to add its a good read also some bits are wrong but hey we aint all perfect ; )

quote was taken from bayes.wustl.edu...

reply to post by sirnex

So probability works by ignoring all other variables except the two sides of the coin?

Yep

Its that simple

Let me just add we use the coin thing because in math its like asking what is 1+1

its the most basic way to describe probability

[edit on 15-12-2009 by 13579]

here is a gem.

What is the probiblity of you flipping the coin?

very basic question. tho many do try to be smart but its very basic in its nature

i gave you a clue

sorry to edit but i felt it would help... probabiltys brother is called certanty



[edit on 15-12-2009 by 13579]

reply to post by 13579

Yep

Its that simple

Let me just add we use the coin thing because in math its like asking what is 1+1

its the most basic way to describe probability

OK, thank you for answering the question. Ignore all extant variables and call it reality. All I needed to know.

reply to post by sirnex


Its not that simple tho granted every post i have seen from you requires me to lecture you on basics.. and i hate doing that.

You see its just a method of understanding mathmatics in a way that we can use it.

math is flawed "for now" so do not worry so much, there is way more pressing problems than flipping coins than what comes next.

why flip a coin? why why why ask anything. from what will we gain from this outcome my friend?

keep asking why and you will for ever be looking for answers, understand the question and you shall know all answers

Question > answers

work out what one matter more.

reply to post by Xtraeme


You seem to be an expert in this subject.

Can you tell me how is it possible to predict 6 numbers that are gona come out in a Lotto draw from 1-49 balls?

Originally posted by merkava
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

You seem to be an expert in this subject.

Can you tell me how is it possible to predict 6 numbers that are gona come out in a Lotto draw from 1-49 balls?

Wish I could say with any accuracy, but as I said before it's a combination of two factors: control and knowledge. If you know the state of all the balls in the container, all detail about the chamber, the force of the fan at the bottom, and if you have perfect knowledge of the electricity source (possibly affecting the fans RPM) you should have enough information to know where the balls will be at any moment.

The problem here is human selection.

Meaning now you either need to control the selector or have full knowledge of every action (present and future) that the person is going to make. The latter isn't a workable solution. So getting the ball-selector to collude with you is really the only option. Still there's some difficulty. Even if you tell your co-conspirator exactly when a ball will pass by the vent. His actions will have to be precise, within a millisecond or two of accuracy, for the information to be useful.

So while you might be able to game the system and get 3 or 4 balls. It would still be very difficult to get all of them if only because humans aren't precision machines designed to work on such small time-scales.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by 13579

keep asking why and you will for ever be looking for answers

So asking questions and inherently seeking to answer those questions is wrong?

reply to post by sirnex


Yep in a ironic kinda way.

More so because by asking you already know the outcome