What force controls probability?

[BillyJoe]

drkitten,

Ignorance may be bliss, but I would not say it is rational.

If someone plays lotto because of the "thrill of possibly winning", I would say I understand why he plays lotto, but I would not say it is rational for him to play lotto.

BJ

 

[BillyJoe]

Unless you are like me, and have a negative net worth...I would definately play that game.

Yeah, but only because you won't be able to pay out when you win.

 

[BillyJoe]

Regarding the force behind probability

I agree that there is no force behind probability.
It is the result of the universe being able to be understood - and hence able to be codified into what we call "The Laws of Physics".
If anything or everything was possible, our concept of probability would not exist.

In a different universe, it could be quite possible that...
- the ratio H/T increases exponentially with increasing number of coin tosses.
- the ratio H/T tends towards 2.
- tossing H would necessarily cause T to be tossed next time.

 

[lenny]

Probability is simply a mathematical statement of observed occurences.

in fact "relative frequency" reflects observed occurences, probability is, as you say mathematical and cares not a dot for observations...

Actually, if things did not work out according to the mathematics there would be a need for an explanation.

take the forecast probability of rainfall in ,say, the 5 day ahead forecasts; coillect all the forecasts made over a year:

count the number of times it rained on a day when a 10% probability of rain was forecast. divide that number by the total number of times there was a 10% forecast probability of rain.

methinks you will find yourself in need of an explanation.

 

[Maenoon]

I'm not a physicist, but it seems to me that the Second Law of Thermodynamics may actually come into play. This is the concept that gives birth to entropy. Boiling it down into simple terms: The more complex a system is, the more that system wants to become disorganized.

So, flipping a coin is a relatively uncomplicated system where you only have three possible outcomes (heads, tails, or the coin lands on its edge). And, drawing on Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty, once you observe how the coin lands, you cannot possibly know if that is how it would have landed if you weren't actually watching it. It's rather like the Zen Buddhist koan, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is watching, does it make a sound?"

But if you're talking about probabilities, the more complex a system is, the harder it would be to predict the outcomes. The only thing you can really expect is that a complex system will tend to become increasingly disorganized as time moves forward.

Brian Greene does a much better job of explaining it in his book "The Fabric of the Cosmos."

 

[T'ai Chi]

What force controls probability?

I personally dunno. But many people have thought about it, and think that god(s) gives some people motivation. For example


"When the Lord created the world and people to live in it - an enterprise which, according to modern science, took a very long time - I could well imagine that He reasoned with Himself as follows: 'If I make everything predictable, these human beings, whom I have endowed with pretty good brains, will undoubtedly learn to predict everything, and they will thereupon have no motive to do anything at all, because they will recognize that the future is totally determined and cannot be influenced by any human action. On the other hand, if I make everything unpredictable, they will gradually discover that there is no rational basis for any decision whatsoever and, as in the first case, they will thereupon have no motive to do anything at all. Neither scheme would make sense. I must therefore create a mixture of the two. Let some things be predictable and let others be unpredictable. They will then, amongst many other things, have the very important task of finding out which is which.'" -E.F. Schumacher


"To understand God's thoughts we must study statistics, for these are the measure of His purpose." -Florence Nightingale

 

[Jorghnassen]

take the forecast probability of rainfall in ,say, the 5 day ahead forecasts; coillect all the forecasts made over a year:

count the number of times it rained on a day when a 10% probability of rain was forecast. divide that number by the total number of times there was a 10% forecast probability of rain.

That's not how probability of precipitation works. IIRC, if it says there's a 30% chance of rain, it means 30% of the territory covered in the forecast will see some rain according to the model used. Weather forecast is still very much done deterministically (though things may be changing, see some of the works of, say, Adrian E. Raftery).

 

[BillyJoe]

So, flipping a coin is a relatively uncomplicated system where you only have three possible outcomes (heads, tails, or the coin lands on its edge). And, drawing on Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty, once you observe how the coin lands, you cannot possibly know if that is how it would have landed if you weren't actually watching it. It's rather like the Zen Buddhist koan, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is watching, does it make a sound?"

I am finding it difficult to see the analogy between a Coin Flip, Heisenberg Uncertainty, and the Zen Koan.

 

[Hellbound]

It's rather like the Zen Buddhist koan, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is watching, does it make a sound?"

Yes

 

[Meffy]

And, drawing on Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty, once you observe how the coin lands, you cannot possibly know if that is how it would have landed if you weren't actually watching it.

My understanding of Heisenberg is that his principle applies strictly at the quantum mechanical level -- that only via fairly extraordinary contrivances can it be made to affect events at the macroscopic level. (If that was intended as a joke, beg pardon.)

 

[Maenoon]

My understanding of Heisenberg is that his principle applies strictly at the quantum mechanical level -- that only via fairly extraordinary contrivances can it be made to affect events at the macroscopic level. (If that was intended as a joke, beg pardon.)

What can I say? I'm incurably facetious.

Seriously, though, I do realize that Heisenberg's principle applies to particles.

However, the study of particle behavior is cogent to a discussion about probabilities. Numerous experiments have shown that particle behavior is directly associated with probability waves.

The probability waves associated with any given particle theoretically stretch across the entire expanse of the universe, but the waves spike the strongest near the vicinity of the particle. So, you can expect that a particle will remain near the spot where you last saw it, but it could just as well dart off across to the other side of the universe without any warning. It's not likely, but it is supposedly possible. It's one of the freakier ideas associated with physics.

This is probably an unsatisfactory explanation. If you want to learn more, once again, I refer you to Brian Greene's books.

 

[Meffy]

What can I say? I'm incurably facetious.

You're not the only many-faceted member of the forums. I'll skip the books, as the starship Heart of Gold already provides an excellent demonstration of the power of the improbability drive.

 

[jayrev]

drkitten,

Ignorance may be bliss, but I would not say it is rational.

If someone plays lotto because of the "thrill of possibly winning", I would say I understand why he plays lotto, but I would not say it is rational for him to play lotto.

BJ

Sure it is, as long as he values (the enjoyment of playing + the odds of winning) more than the cost of the lotto ticket. In fact, I would say it must be so.

 

[BillyJoe]

Sure it is, as long as he values (the enjoyment of playing + the odds of winning) more than the cost of the lotto ticket. In fact, I would say it must be so.

What is the value of (the enjoyment of playing + the odds of winning)?

First of all, the (the odds of winning) are practically zero.

So then, what is the value of (the enjoyment of playing)?

In fact, it doesn't really matter because "the enjoyment of playing" is based on the misconception that he has a real chance of winning. But we know his actual chance of winning is practically zero. So, it doesn't matter how highly he values the "the enjoyment of playing", it is still irrational.

----------------------------

If you are saying that it is rational because of the mere fact that he enjoys it, regardless of the fact that his enjoyment is based on an irrational assessment of his chances of winning, then I think we have a disagreement about the meaning of the word "rational".

 

[Loss Leader]

In fact, it doesn't really matter because "the enjoyment of playing" is based on the misconception that he has a real chance of winning. But we know his actual chance of winning is practically zero. So, it doesn't matter how highly he values the "the enjoyment of playing", it is still irrational.

In grad school, we used to say that the lottery is a tax on stupidity.

 

[Cuddles]

What is the value of (the enjoyment of playing + the odds of winning)?

First of all, the (the odds of winning) are practically zero.

So then, what is the value of (the enjoyment of playing)?

In fact, it doesn't really matter because "the enjoyment of playing" is based on the misconception that he has a real chance of winning. But we know his actual chance of winning is practically zero. So, it doesn't matter how highly he values the "the enjoyment of playing", it is still irrational.

----------------------------

If you are saying that it is rational because of the mere fact that he enjoys it, regardless of the fact that his enjoyment is based on an irrational assessment of his chances of winning, then I think we have a disagreement about the meaning of the word "rational".

If someone spends £5 in an hour gambling, is this any less rational than spending £5 on a film in the cinema? There is no logical scientific reason to enjoy either of these, but I doubt many people would argue the cinema is irrational, so why should gambling be? If people understand that they are not likely to win, but are just gambling as a fun way of spending a couple of hours with some friends I see nothing irrational about this at all. It only becomes irrational when people actually believe they have a better chance of winning than in reality, despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

[BillyJoe]

If someone spends £5 in an hour gambling, is this any less rational than spending £5 on a film in the cinema? There is no logical scientific reason to enjoy either of these, but I doubt many people would argue the cinema is irrational, so why should gambling be? If people understand that they are not likely to win, but are just gambling as a fun way of spending a couple of hours with some friends I see nothing irrational about this at all.

I believe I was talking specifically about the lotto.

It only becomes irrational when people actually believe they have a better chance of winning than in reality, despite all evidence to the contrary.

We agree then.

 

[Roboramma]

I believe I was talking specifically about the lotto.

I don't see why it should be impossible to enjoy playing the lotto without being misguided as to your actual chances of winning...

 

[BillyJoe]

I don't see why it should be impossible to enjoy playing the lotto without being misguided as to your actual chances of winning...

You know that the chances of you winning lotto are practically zero and yet, week after week, you enter the lotto and, week after week, you watch the draw to see yourself not winning yet again.
Sound like fun to you?

 

[jayrev]

What is the value of (the enjoyment of playing + the odds of winning)?

First of all, the (the odds of winning) are practically zero.

So then, what is the value of (the enjoyment of playing)?

In fact, it doesn't really matter because "the enjoyment of playing" is based on the misconception that he has a real chance of winning. But we know his actual chance of winning is practically zero. So, it doesn't matter how highly he values the "the enjoyment of playing", it is still irrational.

----------------------------

If you are saying that it is rational because of the mere fact that he enjoys it, regardless of the fact that his enjoyment is based on an irrational assessment of his chances of winning, then I think we have a disagreement about the meaning of the word "rational".

No, rationality is absolute. I think we have a disagreement about the meaning of "practically zero", as well as the relativity of money. It would be irrational for me to invest my 401K in lotto tickets. It is not at all irrational for me to buy 1 lotto ticket if the cost has "practically zero" affect on my life, while the potential payoff could have a drastic affect.