If probability is objective, what is its nature? What kind of

>>1467250
It can't be objective.

Let's say after flipping a coin 1000 times you conclude the chances of getting heads are between 49% and 51%. How sure are you that your conclusion is correct? You are not 100% perfectly sure.

If you then conclude there is a 99% chance you are correct, in turn you can't be sure this 2nd conclusion is correct and so on.

You could use calculus and say there is a 1% chance you are wrong and a 1% chance you are wrong about being wrong and so forth, the end result is a 0.8998998998998998998998...% chance of being wrong. However, again, your calculus could be wrong.

Thus, all knowledge is anchored in the assumption that some things are certain. You might be aware "you can't know nuthin", but lack of omnipotence forces you to make these assumptions.

>>1467300
How about atom decay

>>1467250
>>1467375

It's deterministic, not random.

>>1467300
>Let's say after flipping a coin 1000 times you conclude the chances of getting heads are between 49% and 51%
Excellent so my current probability distribution of the coin is a pair of delta functions

>How sure are you that your conclusion is correct?
It's called updating my prior and then looking at the covariance matrix of the prior, it gives a mathematical evaluation of the tightness of your heuristic approximation of the probability distribution of the coin. There we go, I have my estimate and I also have a deterministic figure that tells me the accuracy of my estimate.

>Thus, all knowledge is anchored in the assumption that some things are certain
Mathematics avoids godel's theorem about being either consistent or incomplete by setting the ZFC axioms such that it is consistent but incomplete. An easy example of the incompleteness is the lack of a multiplicative inverse of zero.

>>1467399
No, atom decay is pure random and you don't know what you're talking about. As for coin flips, a sufficiently complex and time dependant interaction with the environment will flatten the distribution of the coin flips to the point where it is sufficiently close to random over multiple flips even though each flip is deterministic.

Probability is an abstraction that has no observable basis in reality. You might as well call it "Guessing maybes".

>>1467250
>You might be aware "you can't know nuthin"
>Knowing you can't know
post dropped.

>>1467420
>Mathematics avoids godel's theorem about being either consistent or incomplete
>avoids godel's theorem about being incomplete
>by setting the ZFC axioms such that it is consistent but incomplete
>but incomplete
>mathematics avoids being incomplete by being incomplete
Fucking post dropped god, probability just attracts retards, even eloquent retards. A bit of education does nothing if your grasp on logical reasoning dies by contradicting yourself in basic ways.

>>1467466
>You might be aware "you can't know nuthin"
>Knowing you can't know
post dropped.
meant to respond to >>1467300

>>1467466
>mathematics avoids being incomplete by being incomplete
I said it was incomplete, the point is that it's consistent, so the claim that you "dont know whether it is correct" if false, you know whether what you've done is correct but you cannot evaluate whether or not it is the optimal method of doing it. Perhaps I should be clearer in my language;

Given the choice of consistency or completeness mathematical language (at least the mathematics that uses the ZFC axioms) opts to be consistent rather than complete.

File: 1454300745365.jpg (160KB, 828x686px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 828x686px

>>1467517
Yes you've avoided my antagonistic red herrings with skill, perhaps I've misjudged you, young flower.

Now tell me more in voluptuous language about how probability is nothing more than guessing maybes.

>>1467548
>Now tell me more in voluptuous language about how probability is nothing more than guessing maybes.
>Nothing more than guessing maybes
This post is bait and you know it

That said, I'm a sucker for bait.
I raise you the probability distribution of a pre-measurement quantum state as an easy example of the physical implications of probability. For some initial distribution in SU(2) (assuming a pure state) I can apply completely positive trace preserving (CPTP) operations to manipulate the distribution.

We can then extend this from pure states to acting on mixed states or entangled states without having to change those operations while still observing and preserving the mathematical relations found within statistics and probability. Even better we can get squeezed states or break the trace preserving condition to observe some more exotic distributions.

Even without the need for experimental verification, the use of a prior in bayesian statistics avoids the fundamental implicit presumptions of frequentist statistics and removes the notion of all numbers being "guessing maybes". The outputs are now clearly defined as existing only over their input range.

File: cygnusatratus2.jpg (167KB, 911x598px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 911x598px

>>1467420
>I have never seen a black swan therefore I have absolute deterministic proof there are no black swans
no, you just assume there are none because you don't have any evidence to go on

>>1467250
Probability doesn't exist. It is a construct. Probability denotes the magnitude of missing information or mis-information associated with a particular outcome.
The only time that probability exists is when all the variables in the system have not been made clear or elaborated upon.

It's still incredibly useful as we can make judgements of the trends of nature. Probability will always exist in some for unless the entire system is wholly and completely quantified i.e we figure out not just how everything interacts but also where and what things are interacting in the entirety of our world.

Given this isn't going to happen any time soon probability is the best we can hope for in any prediction that isn't about an event taking place in a experiment or vacuum.
t. determinist

>>1467420
>No, atom decay is pure random
No such thing can ever or will ever exist. Whether it exists beyond our comprehension and always will is another question but nothing is ever 'random'.

>>1467468
Its wrong anyway because we know of our own existence