The name for the point where a probability changes

As in the title, the name for the point where a probability changes please.This is an exceedingly simple question, but sometimes the simple can be less obvious so I will clarify.First the chance of something is 1/4, then later it is 1/3, in between the chance changed, the point where this chance changed is called ......?I use the word decision, or determination. Resolution may be another word in use. I'd like to know the common name that is in use within science for that point, if there is one.
-----------Well I asked this for a while now already and still no answer.... This topic deserves it's own thread certainly. That's because if there is no name it follows that:- scientists are not much aware of changing probabilities (of course)
- every subject which has changing probabilities as an element would tend to be covered incorrectly, or not at all by sciencesubjects include:
- any event which has several possible outcomes
- human intelligence understood as having the essential requirement the ability to make decisions
- the origin of the universe, because it is an "uncaused cause"
- the origin of anything in terms of the probability of it coming to be (which is the most common use of origin, more common as the "what came before" descent with modification use of origins)Perhaps a good example to find out the name in use for changing probabilities is to investigate Gould's contention, that if time were wound back, evolution might have gone differently. For instance he says, no big comet might have hit the earth, and the dinosaurs would have developed into different species, in stead of going extinct. So what Gould is saying is that at some point in time there was a probability of dinosaurs evolving into other species. At a later point this probability was negated, they went extinct. What does Gould call this point, or phase, in time in which the probability of the dinosaurs evolving changed?I feel this argument, if it holds, is very strong indeed, for creationism. A science without a name for "change in probability" is like a science without the words "cause and effect". Creationism is then the right and proper protector of knowledge about "changes in probability", against an ignorant form of science. Creationism the protector of knowledge about decision, choice, intelligence, final judgement, free will, emotion, and origins in it's most true sense. The sense in which there is no infinite regression back to other causes. The quite apparent links of science to predeterminist ideologies, becomes all the more damning, when it is understood that current science is strongly prejudicial to ignore changes in probablities. So all the criticism comes together IMO, and the result is that for as far as the debate goes, evolutionists are on the wrong side of things, and creationists are on the right side of things.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

That's very funny, one to call changing probabilities cheating, the other to say probabilities aren't real. This just more goes to substantiate my argument.Do any of you really believe in day to day life, that probabilities don't change, that probabilities aren't real? Aren't you at all aware of making decisions which change the probability of something? I think I can exclude the possibility that you never speak as though you make a decision which changes the probability of something, because it is so deeply ingrained in common knowledge. But do you believe in your own words, when you say you made a decision which makes something more likely to happen?I guess you can say that probabilities aren't real, in the same way that you can say causes aren't real. As mentioned many times before, causes are in the past, and so you can say the past is not real, because common knowledge says only the present is real. Probabilities are in the future and so they aren't real either in the same way, because only the present is real, it is said. In any case the past and the future seem to have some relevancy to the present.It seems what you mean to say is that probabilities aren't real because they aren't causes, or because they are really causes in disguise.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think you are just confusing yourself by your wordusage. Sure a probability can never effect anything, because only causes have effects. Probabilities do however, have an outcome, which constitutes a reality.What you say, goes to argue that science is right not to have a name for where a probability changes, because there are no such thing as probabilities even, let alone changes in them.I'm not so sure now what to do now. Argue to you that there actually are changes in probabilities, or leave your opinion standing as evidence that scientists ignore changing probabilities.You don't ignore changing probabilities in daily life, that would be impossible, given common knowledge relies on it so much. Only in a science context do you deny it.I don't see much use in trying to convince you. What use is there to try to convince someone that a speck of dust might have ended up in a different place then it is? I have no hope that reasonability affects absolute predeterminism.I think it better to leave your opinion standing as evidence that science ignores changes in probabilities.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Oh so you believe that probabilities are real, but don't change. It's certainly very amazing to talk to people who don't believe in chaning probabilities.So in the USA elections, there was a continuous set probability of Kerry, or Bush winning. This probability didn't change at all ever, for either of them, except when Bush actually won the election, then it went to 1 for bush, and zero for Kerry.Well that still leaves this point of the actual winning of the election as a change in probality, a change to 1 and 0 respectively. Please give the name for it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Yes I think that's the right word for how a change in probability is referred to in science. I checked it on the web, and it seems consistent with common knowledge usage of changes in probabilities.I would like to see though, a reference where a realization is modelled, and how this realization is referred to after the fact.For example. The americans "realised" president Bush. President bush caused the terrorists to run and hide.Well maybe this example is not very clear. The point is to have a realization (elections) which sets a cause (bush presidency) which has the effects (terrorists run and hide).I would like to see if there is logic / wordusage like that within science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

That's very funny again RAZD. In looking for "realization" I came across an article that comments on this prejudice that is ingrained in science, that scientists who have to use probability for their field are looked down on by other scientists, that even when they use it they deny that there actually was more then one possible outcome.Why you choose to remain to be ignorant, while you have all this knowledge about probability, and realization, right there in the common language you use daily, is something perplexing. I can just ask you to argue against yourself, argue your common knowledge against your scientific knowledge.It seems rather then recognizing probabilities, you prefer to recognize multiple universes even, when you say that it is really about things existing simultaneously. Do the dinosaurs also simultaneously evolve into other species, while also going extinct? Or only when the dinosaurs observed each other did one or the other occur? That makes no sense, that seems very much like someone trying to hang on to a cause and effect idea at all cost.There you go again talking about probabilities having effects, while I already explained to you, and while you already know by common language, that causes have effects, and probabilities have outcomes.Can I summarize your "logic" as saying probabilities don't have an effect, so they don't exist? Doesn't that show the mistake in all the arguments you reference in a nutshell? Probabilities exist in the future of course, just as causes can be said to exist in the past. they exist.For something that has already occurred, you can make a calculation previous to that point in time, and calculate the probability of it occurring from there. The fact that it did occur does obviously not mean that it always had a probability of 1 of occurring, that would be obviously wrong.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

And so conditions change continuously due to probabilities being realized continuousy. That is what happens during the run-up to the vote. Some of those probabilities being realized having a very large influence, on the probability of who wins.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

All of science are models of reality. I don't see your point in lifting out probability as a model, since it is all modelling.I also said that before, that the outcome of a roll of a die is determined at the start of the roll, but on thinking about it, I think there is no way they have proven that. It is merely a fanciful assertion to sustain a preconceived opinion. They may have proven it to some orders of magnitude of different starting positions, but have they really gone to the smallest small? I think not, it is assertion. I also doubt that this is theoretically true for the smallest small, because of the uncertainty ingrained in quantum theory. It is of course one thing to know the rock will fall down for sure, quite another to know the exact position where it will bounce to, by every applicable order of magnitude.Finally there is at least one place where you recognize uncertainty, which is the knowledge of human beings. It's quite absurd really, those who propose that in principle all the future is knowable precisely, because they propose everything is predetermined without alternatives, preserve uncertainty exclusively for their own knowledge. That's very good you are uncertain of your own knowledge, because you are wrong.But rather then to convince you that there are realizations occuring, that a speck of dust might have ended up in another place then it did in travelling a year through the skies (sorry for the argument from incredulity, or argument from ridicule), I think it more interesting to talk about what this kind of opinion of anti-realization does in the creation vs evolution debate.The correct word for change in probability is "realization", thanks to Melchior, for telling me. I think it's a bit awkard to use, but apparently Gould theorized that there was (or might have been) a realization that occurred, at which point it was determined, that the dinosaurs would go extinct, in stead of evolving into new species. I guess the percentage of evolutionists who would know to use the word "realization" for that occurrence can be rounded of to zero. But these realizations may have big influence on evolution, according to Gould, so there is no good reason for this ignorance.My thinking is, that if this talk of realizations were to be developed, if evolutionists began talking much about realizations occurring which determine evolution, that it would become quite apparent that there is lots of room for God everywhere and anywhere. Especially when the origin of the universe is discussed as a realization. Logic dictates that in the end every cause must have it's origin in a realization. So evolution would lose it's link to atheism / materialism, and various ill-conceived predeterminist ideologies.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Clearly you don't understand realization, although maybe the concept of realization is wrong.Don't tell me how to interpret the concept of realization, just tell me what the concept of realization says. For instance if it says that at point X something is 90 percent likely to occur, a realization occurs and it happens, then at point X it was still 90 percent likely to occur, and not 100 percent.I have to reference Klaus Fischer again, who said that it is quite important to recognize the holocaust as a matter of decision, in stead of exclusively as a matter of causes which in their effects lead up to the event. You apparently deny this, when you say that if something happened, the probabilities become irrellevant, because it turns to 1. When you say to reduce our reliance on probabilities, and focus on causes.Our knowledge of realization is quite important, and I believe much more can be made from it as what you make it out to be. For instance how do these realizations relate to one another? Could we perhaps find realizationstructures in nature that are like "democracies", or other kinds of ways in which realizations relate to one another?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think this is just a matter of finding a good name to use for points where things are decided. It is no good to just refer to randomness or like, because that word simply states that things may turn out differently. You have to name the point at which it is decided which way it turns out, the realization. If you use this word often enough, then you won't be able to understand the "how" of realization any better, but you will at least be aware of the existence of it, and not fall back into a materialist trap, of only tracing back effects to their causes, as if that's what constitutes the whole of reality.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I read somewhere that Schrodinger used that example of a cat in the box, to illustrate how ridiculous it is to consider the cat both alive and dead, how ridiculous it is to consider something both a wave and a particle.In the context of this thread, the question should be asked how you should look at this example acknowledging "realization", the point where a probability changes. To say that the cat is both alive and dead, is as far I can tell, just another round about way of denying probabilities and realization as real. The phycisist doesn't want to accept a probability as real, therefore the phycisist conjures up a reality where the cat is both dead and alive in stead of recognizing the probabilities as real probabilities.You make it out as though it is really true that the cat is both alive and dead, another weird thing that science "discovered", which therefore should be believed. But the finding is just what your common sense tells you, it's absolute nonsense, and you would be hardpressed to find a reason why you ever accepted such nonsense in the first place, when finding out that it really is the nonsense it looks to be. Science can apparently tell you anything, and you believe it.Not to be selfimportant, but I think this issue of recognizing, realization, decision, determination, or whatever you wish to call it, is all-important in the creation-vs-evolution debate. How would you rate the importance of not understanding, or accepting one of the absolute fundamentals of reality? Causes are in the past, their effects relate to the present. So far so good, scientists follow. Probabities are in the future, their outcomes relate to the present, now scientists are in broad denial, it is unbelievable. The picture of reality that scientists give is thus absurd. They do give much practical knowledge of causes and their effects, how nice, but it is rubbish when it is asked in exchange for denying one of the fundamentals of how we understand the world. If it is exchanged then on balance we have lost more knowledge then we gained. And everybody knows that realization, decision is the place where religion typically finds it's relation to the supernatural. Whether it is an earthquake happening, or whether it is some evil man starting a war. These things are typicaly traced back to the points where they were decided to happen in religion, and asked why? Why when it was possible for it not to happen, or for an earthquake one might better say, not to happen at a given time, why did it happen anyway? Science doesn't have an answer, religion is not much better with answers, but at least in religion we can ask the important question.Obviously I'm disappointed at the responses in this thread. How do people consider the importance of this issue? Now the future becomes so insignificant that it's existence can be doubted? The real history of the universe, the points of decision in the universe, and evolution, can be ignored? This is the result of science and therefore good for our knowledge? Please tell me where any of you stand on how you rate the significance of this issue for creation vs evolution.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsuregards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It more measures the scope of power of realization / decision over things. It can hardly be decided that a rock fall upward, eventhough it may happen.Would you like to inherit "Darwinspeak", of the savage races of man almost certainly being exterminated and replaced, of gorilla's almost certainly going extinct, without reference to colonial and environmental policy that shows these things are subject to decision? Would you, as professor Graves did a few years ago for some state-commitee, like to substiantate that as good science?I see that you don't address my reference to Klaus Fischer.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are making a mistake, it is not near impossible, it is defacto impossible to know precisely what will happen when you recognize "realizations" take place.I'm basicly just asserting common knowledge. On top of that I do some speculating how "realizations" may be more then just "happening". That they may relate to one another in a structure. Maybe there is a maximum to the amount of "realizations" per second. etc.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Realization is the correct word in use in science, as far as I know, as referred to be Melchior, earlier in the thread. The connection between the probability and the realization, is that the realization changes the probability. It negates it or it realises it.What you are really saying of course is, there is no cause and effect relationship between the probability and the decision, therefore there is no connection between them. Well duh, cause and effect are from the past, probabilities are in the future, they are fundamentally different principles.Maybe realization is not the correct word in so far as probabilities do not just go from their original to one or zero, but they also go to any point in between 1 and zero. That is what we know, it is practicle useful knowledge, it works. Suddenly the "it works" argument doesn't seem to have the appeal it has for other knowledge.Your example says that each calculation of a probability is equally valid. That is simply not so. One says 3/4 chance, another says 2/3 chance. Now in the event it happens, so we say the probability goes from 3/4 to 1, or from 2/3 to 1. I would say one may have a better appreciation of the probability then another. I don't know what you're talking about.There was this gameshow in which a candidate could choose among 3 doors, one of which holds the grand prize. To raise the suspense, after choosing a door, the showmaster then opens one of the other doors the participant hasn't chosen, the one that was empty, and asks if the participant wants to change doors still. So what do you do RAZD, do you change doors, or do you stick with the door you originally choose. Don't tell me you believe probabilities aren't real when a grandprize is at stake.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

There is just no way that you can take something as fundamental as probability, and realization on that probability out of science, or diminish it. It simply results in the common and religious knowledge about it being oppressed and surpressed.Remember that people didn't even know the proper name "realization" on this forum, until Melchior pointed it out. You are all disqualified from historical sciences IMO, well including me, and excepting Melchior, because the twists and turns of history certainly do require some understanding of realization. Also politicology, and any of the more social sciences, and I don't know, all the rest also it seems, because it is fundamental, more fundamental as the law of gravity, or natural selection, or what have you.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu