Very good discussion on the philosophy of probability and latest trends. Some practical advice to people who want to study philosophy (probably they will end up with tons of debt and jobless or lesser job).
Hi. At 22:14, I am in complete agreement that it does make sense to assume that physical processes in nature _can_ be Genuinely Probabilistic, as opposed to say Pseudorandom, i.e. merely Random Looking. I agree with this idea that it is perfectly reasonable to think that a physical process could be genuinely random, but I am not satisfied with the reasons you gave. And I also think it's very dangerous to read Keynes lmao, I have a copy for reference but yeah that is definitely not going to help people get a passing grade if they're taking an intro class lol. Keynes is VERY interesting in one respect ... because he puts the "Locus of Randomness' in the mind of the observer. Things are random because of out inability to know the future. This fact alone makes it worthwhile to study Keynes. However, a physicist will probably think that the "Locus of Randomness' is somehow physically inherent to a particular process. Alternatively some other physicist may look at that same exact process and conclude that randomness does not exist (physically), because the observed behavior is merely Pseudorandom, i.e. the "Locus of Randomness' does not exist ...or is (Keynes) perhaps only in the mind. I think that it is possible to regard probabilistic potentials as being tangibly real, very much the same way that time is regarded as being tangibly real. I'm seeing a similarity there. And I'm also seeing one other similarity which is that Waves require a Medium in which to propagate, and similarly it seems that Probabilities (or their potentials) also need some kind of Medium in which to propagate (assuming that they actually exist). I would love to hear more about this and share some notes. Thanks for this great video :)
It’s an account of the existence of probability that’s deeply indebted to Quine, at least as far as I can tell, but it gets a little muddied by reference to a variety of historical mathematical models that Quine would maybe have less faith in the utility of. I think the style of the argument seems pretty convincing-if science is the best epistemological method available, and if contemporary physical science must be described in probabilistic terms, then it seems we are in a serious way committed to a belief in probability when trying to describe nature. Of course, as you point out, it may be the case that upon further study we realize that these systems were all along merely pseudorandom, and at that point we can drop the probability talk. And I see where you’re coming from, as applying this style of argument to probability seems a lot more abstract than something like water. But for now, given that probability talk plays in indispensable role in physics, it makes sense to assume that the world is probabilistic at some basic level.
@@officialPlacidity I'm probably a bit overly critical of Keynes, to be honest I am pretty impressed that he was able to take this incredibly difficult philosophical position and he really wrestles it to the ground. Keynes is impressive, but they definitely don't teach probability that way these days. Probability is a very difficult problem. It is one thing to approach it on philosophical grounds and try to understand it philosophically. It's another thing to try to hack it with physics, and lots of physicists have said lots of things but there is no such thing as a "probability detector". Also the "determinacy detector" does not exist either. I think this is a real problem for physics even though most wont admit it, most physicists will default to their chosen constructs. Very difficult problem.
Very good discussion on the philosophy of probability and latest trends. Some practical advice to people who want to study philosophy (probably they will end up with tons of debt and jobless or lesser job).
oh come on this quality
Hi. At 22:14, I am in complete agreement that it does make sense to assume that physical processes in nature _can_ be Genuinely Probabilistic, as opposed to say Pseudorandom, i.e. merely Random Looking. I agree with this idea that it is perfectly reasonable to think that a physical process could be genuinely random, but I am not satisfied with the reasons you gave. And I also think it's very dangerous to read Keynes lmao, I have a copy for reference but yeah that is definitely not going to help people get a passing grade if they're taking an intro class lol. Keynes is VERY interesting in one respect ... because he puts the "Locus of Randomness' in the mind of the observer. Things are random because of out inability to know the future. This fact alone makes it worthwhile to study Keynes. However, a physicist will probably think that the "Locus of Randomness' is somehow physically inherent to a particular process. Alternatively some other physicist may look at that same exact process and conclude that randomness does not exist (physically), because the observed behavior is merely Pseudorandom, i.e. the "Locus of Randomness' does not exist ...or is (Keynes) perhaps only in the mind. I think that it is possible to regard probabilistic potentials as being tangibly real, very much the same way that time is regarded as being tangibly real. I'm seeing a similarity there. And I'm also seeing one other similarity which is that Waves require a Medium in which to propagate, and similarly it seems that Probabilities (or their potentials) also need some kind of Medium in which to propagate (assuming that they actually exist). I would love to hear more about this and share some notes. Thanks for this great video :)
It’s an account of the existence of probability that’s deeply indebted to Quine, at least as far as I can tell, but it gets a little muddied by reference to a variety of historical mathematical models that Quine would maybe have less faith in the utility of. I think the style of the argument seems pretty convincing-if science is the best epistemological method available, and if contemporary physical science must be described in probabilistic terms, then it seems we are in a serious way committed to a belief in probability when trying to describe nature. Of course, as you point out, it may be the case that upon further study we realize that these systems were all along merely pseudorandom, and at that point we can drop the probability talk. And I see where you’re coming from, as applying this style of argument to probability seems a lot more abstract than something like water. But for now, given that probability talk plays in indispensable role in physics, it makes sense to assume that the world is probabilistic at some basic level.
@@officialPlacidity I'm probably a bit overly critical of Keynes, to be honest I am pretty impressed that he was able to take this incredibly difficult philosophical position and he really wrestles it to the ground. Keynes is impressive, but they definitely don't teach probability that way these days. Probability is a very difficult problem. It is one thing to approach it on philosophical grounds and try to understand it philosophically. It's another thing to try to hack it with physics, and lots of physicists have said lots of things but there is no such thing as a "probability detector". Also the "determinacy detector" does not exist either. I think this is a real problem for physics even though most wont admit it, most physicists will default to their chosen constructs. Very difficult problem.
Good stuff!
*☼ but then how do you explain God-magick?* _check and mate_
*☼**41:30** you mean birth cis normative male identifying* #2020