Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The name for the point where a probability changes
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 121 of 186 (174621)
01-07-2005 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Syamsu
01-07-2005 5:08 AM


Re: I have this terrible feeling of Deja Vu.
Perhaps RAZD wishes us all to fall into an identity-crisis where we can't identify ourselves as the owner of our decisions
nope. wrong again. you really do not see my position because you cannot restate it.
RAZD rephrasing:
a probability has an effect
also false representation.
hard to win arguments when you don't have substantiation for them, and are reduced to misrepresenting the arguments of others ...
... and never answering the questions or addrssing the points raised.
added by edit -- points not addressed:
#4
It could be that one of the possibilities has been resolved as a no-go
that would leave 1 of the 3 remaining as possibilities.
alternatively a new possibility can be derived from new information that had not been considered before, and that could take it from 1 in 4 to 1 in 5.
what this shows is that the original calculation of the probabilities was in error: it had not properly modeled the {real} situation.
probability is just a mathematical model. it is not real, and it does not force any of the probabilities to occur (or not).
#6
the calculation of probabilities is not real. and the probabilites themselves are not real objects: they are a methematical construction to model the world. they have no effect on what happens, whether you calculate them out to 10 decimals or ignore them.
seriously, do you calculate the probability of everything you do before doing it? Can You?
no. you cannot calculate the probabilities unless you know the system adequately enough to know what all the possible options are. this is, of course where all those bogus probability calculations get so funny: they cannot know how many other alternatives there are.
#12
clearly you do not understand that {all any probability is made up of} is a mathematical model of the {reality system}. there is no objective reality to probability: it is only an intellectual concept.
you can calculate the probability of a coin toss at 50\50 per side, but when you toss the coin you only get one result, and the calculation of the probability of one side or the other has no effect on what side turns up. this is obvious when you toss it again and again: each toss is totally independent of any and all previous tosses -- even if you toss 500 tosses that all end up on the same side the next toss is unaffected.
calculation of the probability of something that has already occured is easy to mistake for a measure of reality as well: the probability is 1 - it happened. any other calculation is irrelevant, because there is no way the occurrance can "un-occur"
#23
Outcomes happen whether they are probable or not.
Think of that coin toss again. If we knew every single little force and subforce and each macro to micro interaction of all the movements and resistances, air currents, etcetera, we could fully and accurately predict the outcome of the toss. Every time.
Probabilities are what we use when we don't or can't know all those little squibs and twiggles of the interactions.
It is not the outcome that is in question but our ability to understand and predict it.
#32
all that has nothing to do with what is going to happen when: probability only measures inability to predict. there is no realization of any aspect. you need to get over this hurdle you keep stumbling over.
Two different people could make different predictions based on their individual knowledge and their own models of reality.
Both would be equally valid even though they would place a different probability of X happening.
When X happens which probability gets realized? Both.
For both to be equally true, there has to be something unreal happening eh?
Or the models just don't connect to the real world.
#39
it is not "realizations" that take place, it is events. there is no connection between probability and the event.
you didn't answer what happens to the "realization" with two different systems and two different probabilities for an event. problem?
#45
you don’t know how many possibilities to include in any calculation or how to weight them appropriately. And if you did you would be able to predict the real one occurring with a probability of 1.
Probability is a measure of your uncertainty, not of reality or any indication for what is going to actually happen.
I shot an arrow in the air, and then it fell I know not where ... ... it falls where its trajectory will take it, and the uncertainty certainly does not keep the arrow from falling.
Stuff happens, whether it is probable or not.
#75
probability of an event does not really tell us what the real actual final result will be, only the event actually occurring does that.
this ultimately makes probability irrelevant as anything other than an intelligent (but often wrong) guess.
#80
the amount of probability calculated is not a measure of the uncertainty of the calculation. the uncertainty is related to all the possible outcomes in all the possible systems is all the possible ways that it can be affected by outside perturbances.
assumptions are always made in such calculations that {this set of possible outcomes} are the only ones that can happen. obviously false.
the objective reality is that anything can happen. and no set of calculated probabilities can have any influence on what really happens. that 10th coin-toss can be heads as easily as tails even though the probability of getting 10 heads in a row is 1 in 1024. it can also be interupted in midflight by any number of totally unrelated events, and that is where the real world steps in to stop the game and in the process kill any possible objective reality involved in the toss.
Now we will get a repeated assertion.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-07-2005 09:10 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Syamsu, posted 01-07-2005 5:08 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Syamsu, posted 01-07-2005 10:30 AM RAZD has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 122 of 186 (174677)
01-07-2005 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by RAZD
01-07-2005 7:57 AM


Re: I have this terrible feeling of Deja Vu.
Probability with effects is your strawman, which you continuously knock down, it is not your opinion of what is true, I thought that was well clear from the context. Go ahead and say that that there are no realizations occurring on any probabilities, that would be making some kind of argument. It would also be going right against the science about probabilities as far as I can tell.
You produce much work in your reply.
So when you calculated a probability of 1/2 of getting the right door it was also "equally true" as calculating a probability of 2/3? Why don't you just admit the obvious that some calculations are better approximations of the reality of probabilities than another.
So when there is a 99 percent chance of X happening, that is basically irrellevant to X being realized? Mere philosphy. You do not act as though probabilities are irrellevant to realization, you will also switch doors to get the grandprize.
You are simply stating that the relationship between a probability and a realization is not the same as the relation between a cause and an effect. This then allows you to say that probabilities are irrellevant to the realization. But that is merely stating a prejudice, the prejudice that only cause and effect relationships are relevant.
And again your support for the truth that "anything can happen", is disengenious, because you don't recognize any point of decision, determination, choice as real whatsoever or give any meaningful name for that point where things truly can turn out one way or another.
RAZD:
"Both would be equally valid even though they would place a different probability of X happening.
When X happens which probability gets realized? Both.
For both to be equally true, there has to be something unreal happening eh?
Or the models just don't connect to the real world."
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2005 7:57 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2005 11:49 AM Syamsu has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 123 of 186 (174697)
01-07-2005 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Syamsu
01-07-2005 10:30 AM


Re: I have this terrible feeling of Deja Vu.
More unsubstantiated logically invalid posting.
what happens happens, regardless of the probability.
prove me wrong.
calculation of probability is irrelevant to the reality of what is going to happen.
person A calculates it wrong but guesses right, while person B calculates it right but guesses wrong. there is no link, no light, no reality to probability. no magic.
consider a thought experiment where there are two identical alternate universes:
in one 'Purple' tosses a coin and it comes up HEADS: I look at it and say hmm, it came up heads; you look at it and say it came up heads because something special {determined\decided\chose\happened} for it to be heads, we need to consider the special "headness" of this result.
in the other 'Purple' tosses the coin and it comes up TAILS: I look at it and say hmm, it came up tails; you look at it and say it came up tails because something special {determined\decided\chose\happened} for it to be tails, we need to consider the special "tailness" of this result.
your ascertion of special relevance to the moment that probability is no longer a factor is nothing more than another post hoc ergo propter hoc ascertion that it had to happen that way just because it did happen that way.
the fact, plainly, is that your response to any probable outcome would be the same no matter what the outcome {is\was\would be} -- that you would claim that result to be "special" -- and this really proves my point about the relevance of probability to reality.
again: prove me wrong.
enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-07-2005 11:50 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Syamsu, posted 01-07-2005 10:30 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Syamsu, posted 01-07-2005 2:26 PM RAZD has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 124 of 186 (174747)
01-07-2005 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Wounded King
01-07-2005 6:29 AM


Re: I have this terrible feeling of Deja Vu.
The argument from ridicule seems to work pretty well. Everytime I mention that determinacy is what you believe about specks of dust, you scurry to deny that it is what you believe about specks of dust. Well now you say that you are uncertain, on some completely meaningless philosphical level, that the speck of dust actually could have ended up differently.
So but what about the holocaust again? Oh yes, that becomes also "unknown" if it could have turned out differently. Klaus Fischer knows. It could have turned out differently he says, but then I guess he's just a historian, and not such a hardnosed evolution scientist like you are.
That's an argument from moral indignation, I guess
You have your own argument from ridicule I believe. That it is ridiculous to attribute an owner to determinations, if such determinations happen to take place outside the locality of a human brain. I'm pretty sure such ridicule has some effect in convincing people. But it is just a matter of ignorant laughter. As before these points of decision may relate to another in a structure, and so we can simply name that relationary structure as owner of the determinations. That is just a wild guess, but the fact is that your giggling about owners to determinations, just belies the fact that you never think about or acknowledge determinations. It is ignorance.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Wounded King, posted 01-07-2005 6:29 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 125 of 186 (174753)
01-07-2005 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by RAZD
01-07-2005 11:49 AM


Re: I have this terrible feeling of Deja Vu.
You are arguing a strawman again. I'm saying that probabilities are relevant to the realizations / determinations on them. That part about calculations is all your own invention, not my argument.
So it is relevant to know, that there is 99 percent chance of something happening. It is not just what happens, happens. What is determined happens.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2005 11:49 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2005 2:33 PM Syamsu has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 126 of 186 (174756)
01-07-2005 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Syamsu
01-07-2005 2:26 PM


Re: I have this terrible feeling of Deja Vu.
you failed the exam again. sorry, go back to door #2. you have added no proof, therefore no challenge to my points that refute your argument.
and you are supposed to show a stronger version when you say strawman, not just repeat a failed argument.
how relevant is knowing a probability is 99% when the 1% occurs? zilch
sorry. it just doesn't add up.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Syamsu, posted 01-07-2005 2:26 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Syamsu, posted 01-10-2005 9:39 AM RAZD has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 127 of 186 (174782)
01-07-2005 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Wounded King
01-06-2005 5:02 PM


Re: I have this terrible feeling of Deja Vu.
Hi wounded king, I will leave it at that. My world has not collapsed, I can still anchor whats left of my faith on that stray particle no one can pin down. Take care

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Wounded King, posted 01-06-2005 5:02 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2005 3:54 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 128 of 186 (174791)
01-07-2005 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by 1.61803
01-07-2005 3:38 PM


endless decimal probabilities
in an endless decimal number (pi, phi, e, 31/3, whatever...) is it not probable that there will be an equal number of odd and even digits?
does that probability have any effect on the actual digit that comes next no matter how unknown that digit is?
enjoy.
{edited to change subtitle}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-07-2005 19:23 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by 1.61803, posted 01-07-2005 3:38 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Peeper
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 186 (174871)
01-07-2005 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by 1.61803
01-06-2005 2:27 PM


Re: I would settle for
I do not wholeheartedly agree. My understanding of Quantum mechanics is that the universe is deterministic. The wavefunction evolves according to causality. It is the initial conditions which are indeterministic. Such was the downfall of classical theory, which stated that knowing the initial conditions of a system one could predict its future behavior. One cannot know the initial conditions with absolute certainty. But, the wavefunction evolves in a deterministic fashion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by 1.61803, posted 01-06-2005 2:27 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by sidelined, posted 01-10-2005 10:57 AM Peeper has replied
 Message 133 by 1.61803, posted 01-10-2005 1:49 PM Peeper has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 130 of 186 (175447)
01-10-2005 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by RAZD
01-07-2005 2:33 PM


Re: I have this terrible feeling of Deja Vu.
Basicly you are saying it is not relevant to be informed of the probabilities, prior to making a decision that will realize some probabiilties of themselves. So it is not relevant to know the probabilities about the doors prior to choosing to switch or not, since "anything can happen".
Would you just point out where probabilities are relevant, and how they are relevant, in stead of giving meaningless phrases.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2005 2:33 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by contracycle, posted 01-10-2005 10:44 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2005 8:45 PM Syamsu has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 186 (175464)
01-10-2005 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Syamsu
01-10-2005 9:39 AM


probabilities
Syamsu, the problem is this.
Imagine you flipped a coin a thousand times and each time it came up heads. Doesn't this imply that if the next time must be tails bbecuase it is so improbable to flip 1001 heads in a row?
Not when one focusses on the specific incident. The next coin flip has as 50:50 a chance of producing the 1001st head as it does the 1st tail.
The fact that flipping 1000 heads in a row is WEIRD does not imply that some agency of the universe therefore intervenes to ser the probably to the average. NONE of the prior events have any impact on the current event - there is no causal mechanism for this to occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Syamsu, posted 01-10-2005 9:39 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 132 of 186 (175467)
01-10-2005 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Peeper
01-07-2005 8:12 PM


Re: I would settle for
Peeper
My understanding of Quantum mechanics is that the universe is deterministic. The wavefunction evolves according to causality. It is the initial conditions which are indeterministic. Such was the downfall of classical theory, which stated that knowing the initial conditions of a system one could predict its future behavior. One cannot know the initial conditions with absolute certainty. But, the wavefunction evolves in a deterministic fashion.
According to Quantum Mechanics what we can say about the universe is restrained by the limits of the uncertainty principle.We cannot know the position and momentum of an individual particle to better than
delta X * delta Y{x} > or = h/2Pi
If we specify a completely accurate position then by this law the uncertainty in momentum becomes infinite.The difficulty is inherent in the wave aspect of matter.
This same uncertainty principle applies to the energy and time aspects of nature as well.
delta E * delta t{E} > or = h/2Pi This leads to the implication and discovery of virtual particles.In violation of the second law of thermodynamics particles can create energy as long as it is returned to the system within the time frame imposed by the uncertainty principe. Thus delta E /{h/2Pi} > or = delta t.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Peeper, posted 01-07-2005 8:12 PM Peeper has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Peeper, posted 01-10-2005 2:22 PM sidelined has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 133 of 186 (175528)
01-10-2005 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Peeper
01-07-2005 8:12 PM


Re: I would settle for
Hello,
Peeper writes:
I do not wholeheartedly agree.
That's fantastic.
Peeper writes:
My understanding of Quantum mechanics is that the universe is deterministic.
This has not been established.
Peeper writes:
But, the wavefunction evolves in a deterministic fashion.
If this is so then Dr. Heisenberg must be incorrect.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Peeper, posted 01-07-2005 8:12 PM Peeper has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Peeper, posted 01-10-2005 2:25 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Peeper
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 186 (175539)
01-10-2005 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by sidelined
01-10-2005 10:57 AM


Re: I would settle for
I agree completely. However, the question was about whether QM was deterministic and based on causality. Some of my understanding comes from scattering experimentation. The Rutherford scattering formula was derived under the assumptions of classical mechanics, which is decidedly (?) deterministic. With the application of Quantum theory, ie. the uncertainty in the position/momentum of the scatterer, the formula turns out to be the same. This, to me implies that the outcome is deterministic although the initial conditions are not. In other words, the wavefuntion evolves deterministically from the fundamental forces (potentials). I admit, I am not an expert. If you have other ideas I would love to hear them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by sidelined, posted 01-10-2005 10:57 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Peeper
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 186 (175540)
01-10-2005 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by 1.61803
01-10-2005 1:49 PM


Re: I would settle for
If this is so then Dr. Heisenberg must be incorrect.
Could you please explain how the wavefunction evolving in a deterministic fashion would prove Dr. Heisenberg wrong?
This message has been edited by Peeper, 01-10-2005 14:28 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by 1.61803, posted 01-10-2005 1:49 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by 1.61803, posted 01-10-2005 2:50 PM Peeper has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024