Is probability real?

probably

probability is real because every system has an input and output, and given choices and the variables which dictate the combination of states which that system can take, there is a distribution in which you can say what the "probability" of an event occurring is.

if i flip a coin ten times, how many combinations are there?

given how many combinations are there, what is the probability that each one will happen, and why?

each of those aspects are real. it's not just hand-waiving chaos or in-determinism, because that's not what it is trying to tackle. you can have a system where it's fully random, like a roulette table, and still deal with probability.

>>7839209
maybe

probability = belief

fight me

>>7839209
more than 50% of the time

>>7839209

bro, it's a 50% chance of probability being real.

It's either real... or it isn't

>>7839308
>probability = belief

What does his even mean?

And sure, I'll fight you, just post your irl location and I'll come find you.

>>7839345
>50%
>not 33.333333...%

>>7839308
If you define some logical axioms to describe degrees of belief, from that follow the basic rules of probability, yes.

>>7839209
Do you mean like in the physical world or in the mathematical sense?

In the physical world, I think must things we call random and apply some probability distribution to are actually pseudo-random. Either we currently don't fully understand the phenomena or whatever is happening, is happening at such a fine level that we don't have the tools required for onservation.

>>7839209
It's a probability.

>>7839376
*33.34%
*a game of luck

I have a question so stupid that it's embarrassing to ask, let alone warrant its own thread. And since this a borderline statistics thread...

How do you calculate whether the difference between the averages of two sets of numbers is statistically significant?

>>7839393
this

>>7839232
Kek

>>7839209
How Can Probability Be Real If Your Numbers Are Not Real?

yes
.
.
.
no
.
.
.
maybe
.
.
.
I don't know
.
.
.
can you repeat the question?

>>7839308
If its is the bayessian approach then yes, btw it works great.

File: Probability is fun.png (701KB, 1000x1024px) Image search: [Google]

701KB, 1000x1024px

>>7839567
You're not the boss of me now.

>>7839373
ur mums house, im fucking her right now LMAO

>>7839418
If I can recall what I learned from Stats 1 I believe you find a confidence interval and if the interval includes zero then it is not statistically significant.

>>7839567

you cheeki breeki little cunt

>>7839209
only probability densities

a conceptual illustration:
choose any real number that lies between 0 and 10 at random
Each individual real in that interval has a 0% chance of being picked.
but there's a 10% chance that the number picked falls between 0 and 1, or 10% that it falls between 1 and 2, 2 and 3, etc ...

this is the only context in which probability has any meaning

I really enjoy listening to esl Asian students pronounce probability

>>7839528
Because in QM probabilities are calculated through amplitudes

https://youtu.be/AufmV0P6mA0?t=11m

>>7839209
is Las Vegas real?
Lrn2probabilly fgt pls

>>7839859
1/100

>>7839308
Dumb Bayesianism poster

>>7839232
kek

Yes it is and it's always equal to 1/2, things either happen or not

>>7840345
Let P represent "anon writes 'Dumb Bayesianism poster'"
Let A represent "anon is an assmad frequentist"

P(A|P) = 1 - ε

>>7839859
1-(1/99!)

>>7839232
First reply nailed it.

>>7839859
1/2

>>7839209

No!

Probability is real only because there is too many variables for human to interpret. Unless free will exists and humans are capable making unpredictable changes in universe. Even after that existence of probability is questionable, it is an illusion.

>>7842443
>believing in global hidden values

What a cuck.

>>7842448

In classical mechanics there is no concept of probabilities which covers all objects bigger than atoms. Sure there seems to have some in quantum mechanics. With bigger objects everything is calculable if you can account all the variables.