Probability is false. Imagine the following scenario:
You and Dominique Jones are great friends in 2nd grade. Then, twenty years later, Dominique moves to Venezuela and loans a Noam Chomsky book to Hugo Chavez. Then, you become a custodian for a small high school. Then, you win the lottery – without even buying a ticket. Then, you travel to the Congo. In Congo, you run into Dominique. Dominique says, “Oh gosh! What are the chances?”
Most people would respond with something ignorant such as “Yeah I know!” or “Pretty low!” According to my research, however, the proper response is 100%. But why?
Because if this scenario happens, the chances of it happening are of course 100%. The key terms in my analysis are “if,” “happens,” and “of course.” If it didn’t happen, then the chances of it happening were always 0%. Some people would argue that this commits me to hard determinism, but it does not. A la carte Peter van Inwagen free will exists. What it commits me to is the world of facts. If you are pro-fact, then you will abandon all probabilities between 0 and 100%.
Tags: hugo chavez, Math, noam chomsky, peter van inwagen, probability
November 3, 2008 at 7:44 am
Way to call a spade a spade, aldarune. This is satire at it’s best. Notice that the blog profile says the writer is a “student of science” rather than someone who has ever earned a degree in any of the subjects he writes about. (Reminds me of NPR’s Ask Doctor Science. “I have a MASTER’S DEGREE!”) Still, it’s pretty amusing that there are probably a lot of people who can’t tell the difference. Notice that the same arguments the author makes about sub-atomic particles, probability, and dark matter could as easily be made about gravity or the heliocentric solar system.
November 3, 2008 at 8:48 am
But the guy is pretty smart. Don’t get me wrong, some of the smartest people I’ve ever known had some of the craziest ideas. But this guy is so completely and consistently 180 degrees from reality that it might be some research for a PhD.
November 3, 2008 at 10:16 am
Not a troll; this is great satire, and I’m enjoying it a lot.
November 3, 2008 at 10:19 am
[...] Now it’s about Probabilities!
[...]
November 13, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Well, probability is effective. Unlike your deceitful entries.
November 16, 2008 at 1:51 am
So if I toss a coin, the odds of it coming up heads are . . . 100%? 0%?
Funny, if I toss that coin a bunch of times, it’ll come up heads about 50% of the time. You should try that for an experiment. You might be surprised to learn that the odds of a coin toss coming up heads are neither 0% or 100%.
I can’t believe I actually had to say that to someone . . .
November 29, 2008 at 6:46 pm
He’s a Troll. But, to answer the point, you are misinterpreting the expression “what are the chances”. If it means, “what are the chances that the event happened in the past” then you’re right, 100%.
I think the claim is “before the event happened, what would have been the chances that this event occurred as opposed to any other”
Here, probabilistic interpretation is meaningful.
November 30, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Oh Christ, and this from the person who said that semantics has been disproven. This is semantics.
If you can perfectly measure every single factor that might contribute to these two meeting, then sure, the probability is 100%.
But probability is based precisely on not having perfect measurements. If we know that 30% of people buy Fords, then the probability of any one random person having bought a Ford is 30%, but the more we know about that person: their gender, income, nationality, proximity to a Ford dealership, etc., the better our prediction can become. We can never have perfect measurements of ALL such factors (which could include just about ANYTHING: fetal androgen levels, which shade of yellow he likes best, his high school girlfriend’s middle name). Probability is about making predictions on the available evidence.
November 30, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Dear WTF:
Congratulations on not understanding anything I wrote. In each of those cases, the probability of the result will be 100%. This is actually verifiable by doing it.
NS
November 30, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Dear Kerry,
First, I think it is brave and wonderful that as a woman you delve into the traditionally male sphere of mathematics. But to answer your point, it is unclear what the “chances” are beforehand, mainly because it is IMPOSSIBLE TO TIME TRAVEL.
NS
November 30, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Dear Patrick:
With this admission, I could rest my case. You admit that once you know the maximal facts about the world, you learn that the only possible probabilities were 0 or 100%. This is exactly my point. Probability is ignorance, not knowledge. Orwell would have a field day.
Out of pure sport I choose not to rest my case there.
In the first part you use a semantic trick by grouping the people, which is less accurate than considering them individually. Individually the probability is 0 or 100% that a Ford will be purchased (probably 0%, given the current auto crisis). Moreover, even considering groups, the probability is either 0 or 100% that the group will purchase X number of Fords, where X stands for the Real Percentage of Fords bought. Now the second part of your silly argument is just plain fortune-telling. This confirms my belief that many scientists and mathematicians have sympathies with what should properly be called witchcraft.
NS
December 12, 2008 at 2:55 am
I am either incredibly amused by your brilliant satire or horrifically frustrated at your logic. The probability of either possibility is exactly equal to either 0% or 100%.
December 18, 2008 at 10:03 pm
If you think of probability as describing the uncertainty in our knowledge of nature rather than a statement about nature itself, many of the paradoxes go away.
December 24, 2008 at 1:46 pm
“If you are pro-fact, then you will abandon all probabilities between 0 and 100%.”
Genius. Absolute genius. How does the 0%/100% thing work for predicting things yet to occur? Are they all 100%, all 0% or a mixture of the two? Or are all predictions in the box marked “ignorance”? Should we refrain from predictions because they aren’t fact? Don’t you think that in some cases predictions can be useful?
I’m fascinated by this site and, frankly, shocked by those querying the serious nature of your blog. This is clearly deep philosophical thought – and in no way satirical.
December 24, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Patrick,
Thank you for your amusing, albeit untrusting, comment!
NS
December 24, 2008 at 6:53 pm
John,
You can’t just hypothesize away your problems. We’re not studying dark matter, after all. lol.
NS
December 24, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Dear JDC,
Thanks for the questions.
It is an open question whether or not we want to predict future events. I’m against it, primarily on religious/spiritual/philosophical grounds. But it’s up to each person whether they want to say that an event either will or will not happen.
NS
December 30, 2008 at 11:11 am
Nice satire. Too bad internet does not transmit sarcasm better.
February 8, 2009 at 10:40 am
Seriously?
You have completely defeated the purpose of probability. You use probabilities BEFORE something occurs, to see IF it will, not AFTER and WHEN it occurs.
This seems to be fairly simple logic. Seems to be, anyway.
April 15, 2009 at 10:16 am
I can tell that this is not the first time at all that you write about this topic. Why have you decided to write about it again?
October 19, 2009 at 9:47 pm
You know, I’ve come across this as well and I was actually surfing around to see if anyone agree with me on the matter.
I’m required to take a probability and statistics class for my major here at UT-Tyler (Electrical Engineering) and I’ve always had a logical mind set. I thoroughly believe that nothing can be predicted.
Prediction is a term that I relate to gypsies and palm readers.
You can look at it in one of two ways
1.) Everything is predetermined by a God of some kind.
You flip a coin, it lands on heads. There is no other alternate universe in which that coin would have turned up tails. So the probability of that event occurring would have always been 100%, or 0% for tails.
2.) Nothing is predetermined.
We are always in the present, never in the future, never in the past. You flip a coin, it lands on heads. What happened? Nothing. Nothing mystical happened, it just landed on heads.
Now the question becomes, can’t I predict this happening by using probability theory? I put it to you that you can’t. There are two sides, you guess you’re either right or wrong. There is no mathematical influence behind it, it is just something that happens.
While I may not be a great thinker, or have a PhD or something of that nature I can understand the concept of probability:
Well, this is the likelihood that this will happen. Sure, that’s fine and all, but what purpose does it serve? In the end it will happen or not.
I think in the end I have to reach this conclusion about probability.
In all reality and in all events occurring anywhere in the universe an event will either take place or not. Which begs another question, what is the probability of the universe itself? Well, silly me, it’s 100% because it’s here. So what about before it was here? What was the probability before that? was it 70%, 14%,0% or 100%? Well, we can rule out 0% because here we sit. Then we can rule out 70% and 14%. Why? Because here we sit.
(I so wish I could explain myself better)
What I’m trying to say is, look at it in reverse. You flip a coin, it lands on heads. Now go back in time and flip it again, will it still land on heads or will it land on tails? It’s too late it’s already happened. Every action since the dawn of time has lead up to that single conclusion. That coin was always going to land on heads, it was never going to land on tails. I think that the only true way that probability of any significance can exist is in a universe where there is a god, but only cares some of the time.
It’s all a bunch of voodoo to me.