On 2/5/2025 12:36 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Brent,
I went through the document you sent, and it outlines the different
interpretations of probability: mathematical, physical symmetry,
degree of belief, and empirical frequency. But none of these resolve
the core issue in a single-history universe—where probability is
supposed to describe "possibilities" that, in the end, never had any
reality.
"in the end" implies post-hoc judgement. When you calculate and apply
probabilities you don't know which events will be realized. That's why
they are probabilities.
Your frequentist approach assumes that, given enough trials, outcomes
will appear in proportions that match their theoretical probabilities.
Which is why some philosophers of mathematics tried to define
probabilities as long-run (-> infinity) frequencies.
But in a finite, single-history universe, there is no guarantee that
will ever happen.
And there's no guarantee some possibility you've overlooked will occur.
Forget histories. Suppose your friend has drawn a card, 6 of Spades,
and now you're going to draw a card and high card wins. What odds are
you willing to give him?
Some events with nonzero probability simply won’t occur—not because of
statistical fluctuations, but because history only plays out one way.
In that case, were those possibilities ever really possible? If
something assigned a probability of 10% never happens in the actual
course of the universe, then in what meaningful way was it ever a
possibility?
It's an application of a theory. Of course it can be mis-applied. You
might leave out a possibility that actually happens.
You argue that if all possibilities are realized, probability loses
its meaning. But in a single-history world, probability is just as
meaningless because it describes outcomes that never had a chance of
being real.
How is that different that describing outcomes that occur where nobody
can check that they happened, that are, in your words, just
abstractions. And they did have a chance of being real, which you would
realize if you knew what " a chance" means."
If probability is supposed to quantify potential realities, then in a
framework where only one reality exists, probability is nothing more
than a retrospective justification—it has no actual explanatory power.
The math remains internally consistent, but it becomes an empty
formalism, detached from anything real.
Don't take any money to a poker game.
The whole structure relies on pretending that unrealized events still
"exist" in some abstract sense,
Which is better than pretending that whole unobservable, inaccessible
really, really exist for real...they just don't make any difference to
anything.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dd78e99d-0384-45e0-b072-4d820a3c53dc%40gmail.com.
