Right. Now tell me what it averages out to?
I *might* agree with you that everything is determined. Forces might influence the toss right after you toss it. BUT it has NOTHING to do with probability.
Every and every day we see this manifest in our lives. It is our experience. We see it all the time.
What we are talking about is mathematics.
The chance arises from the number of sides which is 6 sides.
What you are talking about is determinism. The cause and effect. The universe might be deterministic.
...
Probability and statistics are branches of mathematics. They do not concern themselves with the cause and effect of the universe. They are based on experience, observation, and logic.
Determinism is a branch of philosophy.
It doesn't matter if you ignore all the variables or not. "Chance" is a term we use when we do not know all the variables. You are correct in that aspect.
We can know all the variables or ignore them, but in the case of die rolling, it will average out with 1 in 6 "chance". See?
Many, many philosophers have struggled with this very question for millennia. Is the universe deterministic or not? Are all our actions set in stone? Is the universe truly random? Is there even such thing as "chance"?
This is more of a philosophy problem than mathematics.
However, YOU or the researcher are the determining factor. You are the one who determines which side the die lays on.
Who or what caused you to be who you are or the position you are? Your parents? The environment? Now who caused them? And so on and on ad infinitum. What is the primary cause? What is the first cause?
See, it goes into philosophy, not mathematics.
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Deaf Alien
OK, so the probability arise prior to the toss where nothing is actually occurring. It's illusory and disappears the minute you act upon the die.
I may not understand an event or the cause to an effect, but despite unknowable at the time there is still a predetermined cause to the effect. Something preceded the effect, it's cause not an illusory probability of chance.
Mathematics uses thing's like die rolling or coin tossing to "prove" probabilities and yet that "proof" only arises by not acting upon or by ignoring all extant variables and so thus the problem is just as much as maths as it is philosophy.
Partially. What if another actor causes a disturbance mid-flight? Any and all actions have to be factored-in till the object either come to a complete rest or, if not coming to rest, reaches a state where a reading is taken.
This is the philosophical element.
Everything that I've ever personally observed suggests the natural world is completely predetermined due to the laws of nature, conservation of energy and momentum. Even people are basically the sum-total of the experiences they encounter in the world outside them.
Imagine, for instance, if you were falling through space with no external mass, no light, absolutely nothing around you, and the only thing that exists is your conscious mind. Would you ever form language? Would you be able to imagine the color red? A cat? You'd likely be blank. What makes up a person internally first comes from the world outside of them and because of this humans are largely deterministic.
The curious part is that we have the ability to self-reflect and in that self-reflection we realize that we can start a thought and stop a thought. There is no easy way to determine the causal factor of this other than "will." This is the essence of randomness.
For example lets take the coin-flip model removing the physical coin, removing all participants, and put the entire game in your head. Now in your minds-eye tell yourself, "Pick heads or tails." Before you answer, completely empty your head of all thoughts and then following a minute or two of quietude make a selection.
After this ask yourself, "Did I have any advance knowledge that I was going to make a particular choice?" If not what was the causal element? This is the key question because you control everything when the game only exists in your mind. Was there something that led you to be biased?
The best that can be shown through science is that the thought manifests a second or two in advance but we see no data showing where it's coming from. It's spurious.
It seems in this one scenario the actor is creating or tapping new information / knowledge that wasn't there before-hand. This is important because as I attempted to outline previously probability is quantified in terms of knowledge, choice, & fairness. Yet in this scenario, where there's real potential for perfect knowledge and choice, we still don't see the outcome and the reason for this is exactly because we don't allow ourselves to pre-think the thought (i.e. :1st thought: I'm going to pick heads :2nd thought: heads!)
Assuming nothing can be created or destroyed I think this goes a long way to demonstrating that information precedes manifestation.
Probability, as it relates to math, tells us the regularity with which something can and should happen in an unbiased & fair system like nature where the human participants lack perfect knowledge. It does this by measuring the number of "faces" of an object. Statistical analysis objectively demonstrates the truth of this mathematical regularity.
This is probability theory.
I think the problem here is one of definition because you're interpreting probability to mean randomness / chance; or perhaps you simply disagree with this theory because it doesn't account for what the odds might look like in an unfair system.
Your observation, which is correct, is that once all knowledge is gained (assuming the sentient actor has control) then the outcome is guaranteed. Unfortunately since we don't have perfect knowledge & control the result statistically averages out to the odds as computed using mathematical probabilistic functions.
If someone did have perfect knowledge and they weren't fair (fair being defined as making sure the odds mimic the number of faces) then the system will diverge and a new mathematical model is needed because the explicit constraints (fairness) have changed.
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Xtraeme
If any other factor acts upon the die, it's now a part of the equation. We can't simply ignore it, it's intricate to the system itself. So, if we start out with a die and never act upon that die, I can understand the 1 of 6 probability as it is alone without any other variables to account for. Yet, when we toss that die, we acquire other variables, regardless of the amount of sides of the die, those variables should be taken into account when determining a supposed probability. All extant variables will cause only one side to land, not a 1 of 6 chance of one side.
Yet it seems to me that if probability wants to hold itself up, it needs to take into account that philosophical phenomena. Simply ignoring all extant variables doesn't make something true.
The best that can be shown through science is that the thought manifests a second or two in advance but we see no data showing where it's coming from. It's spurious.
It seems in this one scenario the actor is creating or tapping new information / knowledge that wasn't there before-hand. This is important because as I attempted to outline previously probability is quantified in terms of knowledge, choice, & fairness. Yet in this scenario, where there's real potential for perfect knowledge and choice, we still don't see the outcome and the reason for this is exactly because we don't allow ourselves to pre-think the thought (i.e. :1st thought: I'm going to pick heads :2nd thought: heads!)
Assuming nothing can be created or destroyed I think this goes a long way to demonstrating that information precedes manifestation.
That sounds like a correlation proves causation argument to me.
I think the problem here is one of definition because you're interpreting probability to mean randomness / chance; or perhaps you simply disagree with this theory because it doesn't account for what the odds might look like in an unfair system.
What would an unfair system be?
Yet irregardless, only one side will land as determined by extant variables. Toss the die and that side is already determined, there is no probable side.
Does Probability exist?
Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by sirnex
Ok run an experiment. Throw it 1000 or more times. Throw it in a windy days. On the most bumpy table. Whatever.
Then tell me what the probability is.
I do not understand the disagreement?
A perfect die (ie no weighted sides, smooth, etc) has 6 sides. Logic says that it will land on any of those 6 sides. HENCE 1 in 6 chance. Unless it lands on the corner and stand still. That would be astronomical!
Originally posted by Maslo
It is a logical conclusion that probability is the result of underlying deterministic variables, even quantum probability. But the question is, can anything about these variables be known in our universe? If cant, then what difference does it make to disregard them and say quantum world is inherently random? The description of our world would be the same, so hidden variables become unneeded and arbitrary by Occams Razor.
The question of coin-toss variable is simple, it is deterministic, we simply dont know all the variables, but if we wanted and had the resources to, its theoretically possible to predict the side exactly. But predicting the outcome of quantum "coin-toss" is not possible in theory, because there is no way, no experiment or measurement to determine the hidden variables, at least from our side of the universe.
Originally posted by sirnex
I 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
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.
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.