In the real universe is there such thing as a probability that

Probability is a mathematical construct and thus not part of the real world.

>>8661415
Everything in the known universe is exactly 50/50.

It either happens, or it doesn't.

>>8661415
It seems everything should be 50/50, though an "effective" (subjective) odd could be more or less, but never 0% (or 100%, the complement).
However, if I flipped a coin a hundred times and it turned heads all times, I might give it better odds of flipping heads again. But then I doubt anyone has honestly flipped a hundred heads.

>>8661415
According to the Copenhagen interpretation, yes. Most modern theories consider the universe to be truly non-deterministic, and there are some events that are truly random and probabilistic.

However, there ARE alternate theories, which posit that there may be some hidden variable which, if observed, would allow these events to be predicted with 100% certainty. If valid, the universe would indeed be deterministic.

So in short, we don't actually know.

>So in short, we don't actually know.

So... it is a 50% chance for either? ;)

>>8661431
that's fucking retarded, consider suicide

If I toss a coin in the air there is a 100% chance it will not stay in the air.

There is a 0% chance OP will upload his mind to a computer and live on the internet.

Checkmate.

>>8661415
Which real world?

>>8661489
what if suddenly a nuke blew up under your house and launched the coin into orbit? bet you'd feel pretty dumb then.

>>8661415
There is a 100% probability that there is or isn't a 100% probability in the real world, therefore there is.

File: giphy.gif (420KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 500x282px

>>8661415
Is it? Is anything 100 or 0 percent possible? Nothing is certain or uncertain...

Wow... Philosophy of Mathematics has fucked me.

>>8661415
Yes.

Probability is a means of reasoning with uncertainty. It describes the chance of an as yet unobserved event occurring. You can't have a 0 or 100% probability as those values denote certainty, which is not attainable.

Also 0.999... does not equal 1

>>8661435
>we don't know
more like it's quantum ghosts and science has too much pride to accept it

>>8661435

>We can't figure it out at this point in time and with our resources so we're going to go ahead and say it's impossible

lul

File: 1456784711091.jpg (205KB, 1191x670px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1191x670px

>In the real universe is there such thing as a probability that isn't 100% or 0%?

If that is a true statement than the probability of that being a true statement is 100% which disproves it.

Which means that it's false.

Which means that there is a 0-100% chance that that is a true statement.

Which means there is an above zero % chance of that being a true statement.


Fuuuuuck

File: wolfram.png (283KB, 714x335px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 714x335px

>>8661464
>that's fucking retarded, consider suicide
That's actually true moran.

>>8661415
Quantum mechanics proves that reality is not locally deterministic. So yes there is such a thing.

>>8661714
>Quantum mechanics proves that reality is not locally deterministic.
>I use made up words therefore I'm smart.
Go back to /lit/ter.

>>8661435
>there are some events that are truly random and probabilistic.

Like what?

>>8661719
>made up words
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-70626-7_96
Educate urself, dumbass

>>8661720
>Like what?
Consider a function [math]f[/math] with random values in [math]\{0,1\}[/math].
BTFO!

>>8661731
>>8661731
I'm sorry I don't believe in meta-physics.

>>8661720
Radioactive decay.

Actual observation of decay shows that it obeys a gaussian distribution. It's about as random as you can get

>>8661731
>>8661714
I'm an akshual physicist and you're full of shit. The metaphysical implications of quantum mechanics have hardly been nailed down at this point.

File: yes and.png (24KB, 201x201px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 201x201px

>>8661415
Yes.
Next question.

>>8661747
this
nothing has been confirmed or denied all this metaphysical horseshit is just philosomemes and popsci-cult shit

>>8661747
>>8661750
Even if the implications of quantum physics are not fully nailed down, Bell's Theorem has very clear implications for the reality of probability.

>>8661744
No, uniform distribution is as random as you can get.

>>8661643
My logic tells me your logic is contradicting.

My logic:
>possibly true

>>8661435
Copenhagen is the only interpretation and there hasn't been serious debate for decades.

>>8661744
Is there any solid evidence that leads us to believe this can't be a chaotic phenomenon?

>>8661831
yes

>>8661836
where
(data doesn't give an indication of the underlying mechanism)

>>8661643
Within natural language it would be illogical to quantify an interrogative with a truth predicate.

If you're having trouble resolving the "lair's paradox", observe that truth predicates are not well defined within formal languages and "this statement is false" is roughly equivalent to "blue is false" within such constructions (the Godel/Tarski proof is beyond the scope of this post). The resolution is to use both a meta-meta language and meta-object language that applies truth predicates to statements made in the meta-object language and basic object language (natural language) respectively.

Don't feel bad if you've been stuck on it for awhile, it stumped the creators of naive set theory as well. The inconsistent universal comprehension (y is an element of m such that "any predicate" on y) that led to; there exists a set u such that for all sets z: z is an element of u if and only if z is not an element of z. u is an element of u, and u is not an element of u, both lead to contradictions. Restricted comprehension and the axiom of replacement would be found useful when constructing systems of logic.

Don't get hung up, and never give up.

>>8661415
All things are bound no matter what according to the ,Multiverse Theory

Basically all that will ever be in out universe is predetermined; and in another universe it's the same deal

>>8661748
Explain.

Wouldn't an indeterministic world be indicative of God

aren't the Copenhagen fags basically saying "we can't and will never understand this"

from what I've read online there still isn't proof of determinism or lack thereof, just people taking sides

>>8662579
>Wouldn't an indeterministic world be indicative of God
In my opinion yes but many believe the it's the opposite

>from what I've read online there still isn't proof of determinism or lack thereof, just people taking sides
It's really more of a philosophical debate that scientists are taking part in, because it's impossible to confirm either a deterministic world (until we have discovered all the laws that rule the universe) or an indeterministic world (need to find proof of something being truly random which isn't really possible to prove)

Myself I don't see this issue ever being solved by science, much like the existence of a supreme being, it's just people with opinions on something that is neither provable nor unprovable