Re: Science of choices falls out of research

In article <1148332477.864816.231330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx" <nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Andr G. Isaak wrote:

You keep claiming this, but you consistently refuse to answer any
questions about how one could actually assess what the chance of
something happening is independent of an observer. To claim that a
particular concept, such as objective probability, exists without
providing any details on how one could (even if only in principle)
demonstrate that concept is not compelling.

Your objection is irrellevant, we can objectively measure the chance,
different observers come to the same conclusion. If measuring chance
was subjective we would expect different results from different
observers when they have the same information, this is generally not
the case.

You seem to be missing the point here.

If two people have the exact same information and employ the exact same
model for calculating the probability, then yes, they will obtain the
same result.

This, however, is because probability measures the extent to which the
model in question is able to make a prediction given a particular set of
information.

If two people possess exactly the same information, but employ a
different model (and for real-world phenomena such as the weather, the
model is generally not one on which there is universal agreement), they
will potentially come up with different results.

So if two people arrive at different probabilities given the same set of
facts, *what* *observation* *about* *the* *world* would allow us to
determine which probability represents the "correct" probability?

As I have stated, under the standard interpretation of probabilities,
the question itself is meaningless since probabilities are not
properties of the world, but measures of our uncertainty in our
predictions about the world.

However, since you are advocating a non-standard view in which the
probabilities are actual properties of the world, the onus is on you to
provide some evidence for this claim; You need to provide some
*empirical* test which would allow us to assess which measurement was
closer to the 'correct' measurement. However, you consistently fail to
do this, instead making vague claims about it being objective, but
without any indication of how it is to be measured.


That different observers come to different conclusions when they have
different information applies for all measurements, including
measurements in terms of predetermined equations, not just measurements
of chance.

There, your point is refuted.

The objection which I have been making to your claims has not even been
addressed, let alone refuted. In my previous post on the weather I asked
you which specific claims you disagreed with and asked you to provide
specific arguments for why you disagreed with them. Instead of
addressing these points, you simply declared it as irrelevant, which is
hand-waving at best. If you want anyone to take your claims seriously,
you need to address the specifics.

You say that the language of chance is silent about determinacy or
indeterminacy. But it is simply not the case, for any chance there
*must* be *several* possible outcomes,

No. If we state that the probability of an event is neither zero nor
one, then there must be several outcomes which we cannot, given our
current knowledge, rule out. Whether the phenomenon under discussion is
deterministic or not is a separate question.

as is absolutely essential to
the definition of chance used by anyone, and several possible outcomes
can *only* occur with indeterminacy, and can *never* occur with a
predetermined result.

If by 'predetermined' you mean 'known in advance by us', then yes. If by
'predetermined', you mean 'constrained by the laws of physics such that
only one outcome is actually realisable' then no. It is quite possible
for a phenomenon to be causally deterministic yet still unpredicatable
by our current models.

There, another point refuted.

That's an assertion, but one that cannot be justified.

These points you said were important counterarguments. You do not
actually have any kind of substantive counter-argument. You have a
prejudice against creationism, and based on that prejudice you conjure
up some things on the occasion.

My points regarding probabilities are true regardless of whether life
evolved, was created by god, or is entirely a figament of my
imagination. These issues are entirely orthoganal to the claims which I
am making.


André

--
André G. Isaak
n.b. there are no monotremes in my email address

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science of choices falls out of research
    ... Your objection is irrellevant, we can objectively measure the chance, ... different observers come to the same conclusion. ... measurements in terms of predetermined equations, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science of choices falls out of research
    ... Your objection is irrellevant, we can objectively measure the chance, ... different observers come to the same conclusion. ... measurements in terms of predetermined equations, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: Three Cheers!!!
    ... How, exactly, does random chance build a strand of DNA ... You need to study statistics and probability. ... The sun rose and set because of the gods, ... If Intelligent Design is so intelligent, ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: Lottery facts for Sherry
    ... regardless of the mathematics involved. ... This is the basic law of probability that I learned in grade school. ... In the lottery this law is used to formulate the permutation formula ... Mathematically the odds say it only has a 50/50 chance but the previous ...
    (rec.gambling.lottery)
  • iPILS
    ... which is much more rare than a good chance. ... which inhibits the diminsions of prediction. ... Above we have the solution to a moving average problem. ... Measures of Variation, Charts and Graphs, Basic Concepts of Probability, ...
    (comp.lang.misc)