What is the Deep Meaning of Probability? | Episode 2206 | Closer To Truth
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2025
- Make a donation to Closer To Truth to help us continue exploring the world's deepest questions without the need for paywalls: shorturl.at/OnyRq
Consider three powers of probability: refining data, assessing theories, probing ultimate reality. Watch how these work in cosmology: confidence in precise measurements; assessing competing models; revealing how quantum fluctuations became galactic structures.
Featuring interviews with Ivan Corwin, Licia Verde, @SabineHossenfelder, David Wallace, and Aaron Clauset.
▶ Early-release episodes of Season 22 available now at our website: bit.ly/3QwMzIA
▶ For subscriber-only exclusives, register for free today: closertotruth....
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶ Free access to Closer To Truth's library of 5,000+ videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Excellent... ofcourse SabineHossen Felder is the best in all aspects... thanks 🙏❤.
Beautiful and poetic treatment
It sounds cheesy but I feel lucky to have lived in the same era as Mr. Kuhn and this show
This topic wouldn't be made 20 years ago . As a matter of fact you would get diagnosed for ADHD 30 years ago for telling this to your teachers.
Right it’s giving Carl Sagan
what are the chances.
Agreed. I've missed the last couple of weeks or so due to a TH-cam mixup. I suddenly realized something was missing in my daily feed and it was, unmistakably, Mr. Kuhn and his quest for truth. Happily, I've got some catching up to do.
Probability is just like a guide that will take you on a tour telling you about everything around but himself.
Excellent presentation! The guests have confronted the problems in probability to an incredible depth. In my experience, it remains extremely difficult to get even intelligent people to see the importance of this topic to our understanding of how everything works. Most people are hopelessly stuck in an absolutist perspective.
Fine. But what IS 'variability', what IS 'randomness'? WHY do 'errors' occur naturally?
Why are computer nerds always male, while cosmologists are female?
RLK is the 🐐
Thank you Mr Kuhn for the great work. The way you present these topics, the settings and the people you interview reflect how smart and brilliant you are.
Lol. He's a classic pretentious airhead!😅
Lol😅😅😅😅
He has retained the curiosity of a child who takes a screwdriver to an old clock, and it's wonderful to be a beneficiary of it. 😊
The deep meaning is that we have no access to absolutely exact predictability or knowledge. In fact, this is a fundamental feature of the Universe itself, and is cemented into the very foundation of the quantum mechanics/world via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
If there were gold ribbons for "BEST of show," this one in THIS topic wins hands down.. Whether right or wrong, I've always thought of probabilities as related in SOME fashion to simple averaging.. When one dwells on the idea of WHY this averaging evolves over time and in the absence of influences from past results... Well, we just escaped the perimeters of science.. Good stuff..
Agreed! Closer To Truth has roused my desire to learn more about the fascinating subject of probability.
Indeed.
You have no clue , I am going to answer every question you have and this Man has. This said absolutely nothing, it's time to know the truth and what is! Man made man, this is a fact, I'm going to explain.
I've been following the series for a year or so, watching lots of the 10-15 minute interviews that discuss intersections of consciousness, quantum physics, emergence of complexity, etc. and most of them hit me at just the right time with just the right stuff. I'm a statistician and am really excited to start this video here, especially after reading your comment.
@@cmeimgee . You'll need to get beyond the inveterate shallowness of these presentations.
There is no truth; just a random number of infinite possibilities; and we all exist within a probability space. The fact that YOU exist (which you shouldn’t) is the confirmation.
Happy to see you’re still searching! Looking forward to watching this after finals!
Best of luck! 💫
What I find fascinating is that chance, probability, luck is such a powerful concept that ancient peoples created gods for it.
I must admit that after many years of work in randomized algorithms, the efficacy of randomness for so many algorithmic problems is absolutely mysterious to me. It is efficient, it works; but why and how is absolutely mysterious.
Michael Rabin
Man is so selfish that it cannot embrace this randomness and has therefore invented creators whose sole purpose is to create us and shepherd us along…poorly I might add.
Nice one.
The dark, beautiful twin of probability is true randomness. Few acknowledge her vitality, but without her, probability is impotent; it is the random selection from the choices of what effect shall arise from a given cause that leads our universe along its arrow of time. The multiverse theory arose from the same refusal to accept randomness that we see in those who believe in a creator.
I'm partial to De Finetti's interpretation that probability is subjective and really just a way to delineate the limit of understanding of a system. A coin toss is not really random. It's just a system that we have no predictive knowledge about so our best subjective interpretation is to be entirely agnostic to the outcome.
The term 'subjective probability' is ambiguous in the literature. It could refer to the betting behavior of a subject, or it could refer to the evidential relations of a subject.
@@MBarberfan4lifeYes, the correct term here is epistemic, meaning that probability is not a feature of the world per se but a feature of the limitations of our knowledge. Thus when we say there's a 40% chance of rain, we are not making a claim about reality but only about the limits of what we know about the possibility of rain(Empirically all that is claimed is that 40% of the times we claim there's a 40% chance of rain, it will in fact rain) Subjective probability is a different matter and has quite a many complications attached to it no matter how it is defined(including behavioral analysis)
In the event, nothing probable is. ... Q: Do you stick with your first choice? A: Or maybe you're feeling lucky.
Imagine calling "heads" on a single toss, and "staying" or calling "tails" as it falls.
You're probably right...
If you knew all the outcomes of the coin forever then it would not be 'predictive' knowledge, it would just be knowledge. Is the problem with the world just a matter of lacking knowledge, of needing to expand out limits to knowing? What evidence do you have for that claim?
Sabine is my hero. Love her stuff!!
She believes the universe is deterministic, not probabilistic.
She's probably the smartest entertainer in this universe, as entertaining as NGT but smarter.
@@marcv2648 if that’s what she believes, it’s probably true!
Check out her video debunking the quantum eraser. Everyone else had me believing it was magic, but her explanation is so grounded and clear. I believe PBS Space Time even acknowledged she was correct and revised their own explanation of the experiment.
All hail the Science Karen!!!!!
Just discovered this channel. This exploration of randomness and probability is excellent.
We're so happy you found us! 💫
This series is just amazing
This channel has been on the background of my watches while watching Lex Fridman, and Huberman , but may be pne of the best channels in youtube.
I love the intro
Regarding Robert's reference to the two pillars introduced at the start, at 1:00 - "math as intrinsic and fundamental vs math as extrinsic and descriptive":
It is my understanding, as an engineer, that AI is typically based on Bayesian probability algorithms. But there exists another AI in the form of neural nets, implementing the associative learning algorithm first inspired in AH Klopf's book, The Hedonistic Neuron (associative learning in neurons), and further buttressed in the semiotic theory of CS Peirce. Furthermore there has been online chatter, recently, about interpreting the Feynman diagrams in terms of association. If, as this line of thinking suggests, association is fundamental across all levels, then that opens up a new way of interpreting probability distributions in terms of agency theory, applicable to every form of collective, beginning at the subatomic domain.
The associative learning algorithm for neural nets can manifest as probabilistically as any Bayesian probability distribution, despite being "purpose" (associative) driven. In this way, consciousness as a synthesis of purpose with randomness is compelling, perhaps averting entropy's inevitable decay into disorder.
AI doesn’t necessarily follow Bayesian statistics unless the model used Bayesian methods.
The AI that’s making headlines right now isn’t based on classical statistics or Bayesian statistics. These are non-parametric models with no deep statistical theory behind them. They work at making predictions but nobody really knows why.
Some infinites are bigger than others! Consider the set of all counting integers, 0,1,2,3...Now consider the set of ALL integers; -3,-2,-1, 0, 1, 2, 3.... Which set is bigger? AHA! :-)
7:00 I thought he was going to go to Vegas when he wanted to observe probability in the wild.
I will watch this "What is" episode because I am very interested in the topic. However, I suspect that "What is the Matrix?" will always be my favourite "documentary" about the nature of reality!
like to play pick 3?
Their chairs are awesome
Brothers in Christ; let us remember who we are and why we are. Merry Christmas. Peace on earth.
I don't think we'll get the answers but his questions are very illuminating.
I believe that probability is a perspectival phenomenon -- it only exists in so far as we as observers cannot obtain sufficient information to ascertain the mechanism by which events are determined. What's beautiful is that both practically and thermodynamically, an omniscient perspective is unobtainable. This clouds the future, conceals the past and makes life worth living
I’m sympathetic to this view, but I find it hard to reconcile it with the observation of variability in the early universe. That inhomogeneity must have had a cause, and it’s hard to see how it could be the result of a purely deterministic originating mechanism.
So what makes life worth living is the fact that we can’t see how determined it really is? Or is that not right? Sincerely.
@@longcastle4863 I just mean the unpredictability, uncertainty and our motion through time basically creates free will, and that the only way to know the outcome of your life is to live it
@@simonhibbs887 I'm actually saying that determinism only exists from an omniscient perspective (so it basically doesn't exist).
As for the heterogeneity of the early universe that is very interesting, but I don't think it necessitates fundamental randomness
@@simonhibbs887why “must” it have had a cause?
This makes perfect sense to me as an engineer. It lets me rank things that may happen when designing something -actual risk factors - and provide resources to mitigate them by priorty. Its application is obvious to large insurance companies. It's a way of "explaining" simplifying what may happen to give us peace of mind when we consider things too complex to predict. But why is it that medicine has it so wrong in the application of statistics to preventive medicine for individuals -to such an extent that "first, do no harm" has been forgotten?
for me, probability tends to confuse me because it fundamentally contradicts the deterministic nature of the universe if you believe in that. It really all boils down to whether or not you truly believe that the laws of 'god' have a probability aspect to them. I don't think they do... and that is why physics doesn't involve probability except in quantum mechanics. But I get it, you can use probability/risk as a useful abstraction/model, I just struggle with the idea that there's a 'chance' that our buildings collapse or the sun doesn't rise tomorrow. Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong
Shrodinger said probability was only an approximation of ultimate reality.
Schrödinger also said something about a cat, but he never actually owned a cat. It was named Fellini.
Probably.
Schrödonger was also famous for sleeping with married wives and having admitted to taking plasure in sharing the bed with someone betraying his husband. What I am hinting at is that he ws a rather dishonest man whose intellectual dishonesty probably spilled over into other areas of his life. I own this book of his "Mind and Matter", an endless ramble of nonsense trying to make him sound smart.
Awesome channel!
The problem is due to the pull of conciousness and attention and neuronal delay in perception, we will never be able to perceive anything in real time. It will always be a model, representational sample , closer and closer to the real thing.
Always chasing shadows. Better to understand the mind and conciousness. Then you get it, all these illusions.
I like it whenever CTT moves closer to science, than philosophy. (Though the latter can be important in clarifying the meaning of things.). Probability is important esp. in today's trending fields, such as data science, and machine learning ("AI"). Though the mathematical description can be re-applied in a number of areas, including quantum mechanics, which where one can interfere the probability distributions, as actual realities, as interference patterns, through the wave function.
Philosophy is for the birds.... fly, fly, fly away
Philosophy seeks only to clarify the general view of a range of "topics' in order to clarify the illusions of collective "reality".
If it succeeds, this is because it makes the work of science, as the fashioning of methods for measuring the nature of the World -- probability outcomes, for example -- more likely to be based on true, as opposed to false, premises and/or untested presumptions.
Outright rejection of its importance in establishing a valid ontology of what it is we believe we are actually observing, or whether we can ever be asking the right questions regardless of confirmed results, is never a good bet.
If we cannot ask one valid question from an infinity of inconceivable answers, then how should we ask one invalid question from an infinity of conceivable answers?
Philosophy succeeds when it encourages one conceivable answer from the first infinity, as often as it encourages one inconceivable answer from the second infinity.
To recognize that one might benefit from asking the invalid question in the first case, is equivalent to recognizing a similar benefit by asking the right question in the second case,
This is how philosophy "works".
Master the knowledge lest you worship the science.
Its simple. If we can prove intelligence is a real world creator( which we obviously can) than this is called proof of concept evidence that one can logically use as the base foundation for belief in a higher intelligent creator. It's that simple.
Man…awesomeness…I thought i was crazy guy to think and question probability…now i know there are others too…anyway, i subscribed and watched this probability series…still not satisfied. I am tempted to believe that there is an X-factor that drives ‘randomness’ , from atomic decay to variability in stock market.
Keeps me engaged.
The second type (for large numbers, small probability) the distribution is not called Gaussian, it is Poisson.
Very interesting.
Thanks.
Many in one and one in many?
Basic stuff with a huge amount of poetic wording
Emotions and words are more fundamental than Numbers , so as maths, you need something to apply maths , maths is a intellectual way of seeing reality, but its not all , their are things beyond in Duality than mathematics , probability only works with past data, future start changing as its prediction , but mind show us the illusion of not changing the changes
Chaos? Turbulence? Complexity? Incompleteness? Indeterminacy? Like, the way stuff actually works, not the way we humans want it to work?
When addressing the issue of probability, where do you start ? This is the crucial question, because if you cannot find the beginning, then the probability is that you will come to the wrong conclusion.
Anybody know who the artist and what the song were for the soundtrack starting a 24:22? Thanks in advance for your help!
In my 60 years I have learned that we don't really know anything, but like to believe we do.
If only it had been possible to make any scientific or technological progress over those 60 years (I'm only a few years behind you). Oh well.
For probabilities there's science, for the rest there's religion.
Nice !
Pretty trippy! I have a name for the new future math that explains it all...Triptonometry!
Can't the multiverse theory be seen not as actual multiple universes, but as virtual multiple universes each as plucked/transduced/created by the observation from the virtual infinite potentiality of observations (universes)??
There is zero evidence for other universes. So the biggest misconception about the multiverse is that it’s a bone fide theory that’s been proven. It isn’t-it doesn’t really have a mathematical basis- In the cycle of science it remains at the hypothesis stage .
I think you need to speak to some specialised Philosophers about probability, not scientists. Scientists are often unaware or misunderstanding of the meaning and metaphysic behind their probability work. There is currently some very interesting work being done on probability in modern philosophy.
@22:12 the speaker says "inculcate," but he meant "innoculate."
God bless you
In every case, we are talking about describing the behavior of systems. Probability math is a descriptor, not the system itself. We live in a random universe, where certain things are more likely to happen than other things.
So, probabilities is an approximation of different outcomes of an inherently deterministic undelying nature? I.e. if the systems at play are just too complex for us to comprehend or calculate we resort to approximations.
Superb presentation! This will be an excellent video to inspire students who are starting with probability and statistics. A bit surprised they didn't specifically mention Bayesian and Frequentist approach to probability. Also, extending binomial distribution to infinitesimal intervals leads to Poisson distribution and not a bell curve.
I don't understand what you mean here. The only place I see binomials distributions and bell curves is where he said correctly the limit of the sum of an infinite sequence of tosses of a fair coin is a bell curve (i.e. normal Gaussian distribution) and this is totally correct. Is there somewhere else he talks about "infinitesimal intervals"?
In fairness it’s very impressive what they did manage to discuss given the necessary brevity of the video.
The brevity dogs me especially so seeing the censored conversation as B roll narrated over by Kuhn.
Although, I see the need to discuss other distros and to be fair many times Gaussian is applied because it is familiar. The idea of binary distros could be interesting in exploring a computed simulacrum universe. Closer to Truth is a teaser, like the life, partially explored, that never explores the whole of the space.
With large n and p the normal approximation to the binomial can be used too.
Bayesian and “frequentist” statistics don’t offer different definitions or notions of probability. That’s just wrong.
They establish different procedures for how to infer parameter values from data. They both do this using the same definition and meaning for probability.
By the way there is no deeper meaning of probability. A probability is the ratio of the frequency of one outcome over the space of possible outcomes. Thats a complete and lucid definition; there isn’t anything deep or hidden
The probability of human existence is impossible that it seems unnatural but it is natural.
Why ate 16:53 the voice cut off !!!
A most interesting series of discussions.
I'm intrigued by one of Mr. Kuhn's pillars.
The decay of a large number of radioactive atoms follows a beautifully defined half-life curve.
But pick out any one atom, and it might decay on Tuesday, or it might decay in 42 years. Somehow, it carries within its nature, the " probabilistic DNA " of knowing that is indeed the family of atoms to which it belongs.
Why aren't all probabilistic phenomena just white-noise driven ?
General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that they take place at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where you observe it from will be the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse happens when we bring a particle into the present/past. GR is making measurements in the predictable past. QM is trying to make measurements of the probabilistic future.
Interesting.
Can you please fix the audio and reupload? Thanks.
Interesting sound glitches at 16:51, 17:30, 20:36. What was said there?
Seems like probability is the instrument to understand complex systems with limited data.
To be able to slowly build more precise models and extract universal meanings that can be applied in other models.
The question is what would be a better model to replace wave function model of probability distribution for quantum objects...
I wondered that as well.
@@coalstar i wonder is the any way to get another version of this episode to verify if this glitches relate to youtube compression...
I'm just waiting for him to have a guest on who enters the room says "42" then leaves.
While that would be funny, and I would laugh out loud. I'm not so sure it would fit with the tone of this often times "serious" channel. Which is why it would be hilarious.
You're going to have to wait 2,000,000 years😳
42? 42 isn't a prime number! How about 137? 1/137?
No blue. No set. No hike. Just a simple exit. Lol.
@@michael-4k4000unless you're being sarcastic, it's a reference from the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy
The most important thing to notice here is that no one stated clearly what probability actually measures. Indeed, the vast majority of scientists and philosophers don’t know what it measures. We will be at lot closer to the truth once we understand what probability measures. I hope that this channel will address the issue more fully in the future, and will interview people who are aware of the differing philosophies. These are not just Bayesian versus frequentist, but objective versus subjective Bayesian views.
It measures outcomes.
Yes, you're right. I'm surprised Kuhn didn't interview any philosophers in this segment - only scientists and mathematicians. Most scientists think of probability as epistemic - namely a measure of the limitations of our knowledge. This is why they don't see an incompatibility between the block universe in which past present and future are fixed and quantum indeterminacy which to them only suggests to them that you cannot infer the future from the present moment, not that it isn't nonetheless set in stone
Yes, you're right. Kuhn didn't interview any philosophers in this segment - only scientists and mathematicians, and that's a regrettable omission. I think most scientists think of probability as epistemic - namely a measure of the limitations of our knowledge. This is why they don't see an incompatibility between the block universe in which past present and future are fixed and quantum indeterminacy which to them only suggests to them that you cannot infer the future from the present moment, not that it isn't nonetheless set in stone
@23:51 In other words,
"RANDOMNESS IS JUST AN ILLUSION., NOT TIME"
Reality has the highest probability...for quantum phenomena to be seen
Multi verse is darwins argument structure of given enough time and universe astronomical mathematical odds of a single cell origin arises in this fine tuned life.
But this was disproven with multiple different genetic codes.
It makes the multi verse a chaldean minded evolutionary primordial soup pagan religion motive. Its refusal to accept the evidence or reform epistemology of self beliefs.
The truth is there are only three states of affairs
Possibilities
Probabilities
Certainties
Something I find interesting about probability is that it can tell you the chance, possibility of something happening but can't tell you when.
I guess you could ask, what is the probability of an event happening over a certain amount of time.
Then, if the probability is high, ask, what's the probability of it happening today.
As time passes and the event hasn't happened, you could calculate the probability of it happening at that point and so on.
Over time, the probability should increase, but it still couldn't tell moment the event will happen until it does happen.
By that time, you already know the answer anyway.
This is kind of why I think when calculating the wave function to determine what state a particle is in is in fact just telling us, while we can calculate the probability of a particle being in one state or another, we can't know until we observe it.
Scientists then say that's when the wave function then collapses to 100%.
All that says to me is that even though a particle has a specific spin, you will only know the answer once you observe it, which is kind of obvious.
Tell me again about the universe having had a beginning? Mass-energy can be neither created or destroyed. Doesn't that fact preclude the idea that there ever could have been any other possible universes? Whence the persistence?
I don't get Sabine's argument that having a limited dataset makes it difficult or impossible to determine the probability of some state. Wouldn't that make it easier? For instance determining the probability that our universe exists the way it does given it is the only thing that exists seems reasonable. Determining that if there is an infinite multiverse now seems impossible. In fact, we wouldn't be able to determine the liveliness of anything because every possible state is equally possible except maybe states where we don't exist at all since we do exist. But either way, this would make all knowledge defunct and science impossible as anything other than an exercise in ad hoc reasoning. So to me the opposite of what I think she was saying seems true.
Used to follow Sabine Hossenfelder on Her channel...I was quite surprised when She used a certain manner to speak about Avi Loeb....I expected more gratitude for a fellow Scientist who takes steps and passionate. Nice video...🙏🌻
Watched a few of Sabine's videos, she's always right, just ask her... has for Avi Loeb, and I'm aware of his opinions on the ET subject, in this case, I think that Avi is going down the rabbit hole...
@@festeradams3972 I would surely be curious about what Avi Loeb did not say but could of...🧐☺️
That's Sabine's schtick, isn't it? Bagging on other scientists and complaining about crap. It got old
@@k-3402 I think it's healthy for science if scientists are honest about their opinions of each other's work. In fact that's the process. The whole point of science is to take a whole lot of chaff and try and find the few grains of wheat in there.
@@k-3402 lmao like a Science Karen. 😂
Hi Sir, I have a simple question. Inside a factory at the end of the shift a supervisor and his co-worker are counting the produced objects, the objects are approximately the size of a tennis ball. It is their daily routine,the worker counts the objects as he takes it from the production lot and puts it inside a bag. The role of the supervisor is to keep watch so that there is no mistake while counting. One fine day, before starting the counting process, the supervisor looks at the lot and writes down some random three digit number as quantity of the produced items, in short he assumes that the actual quantity would probably match with that number. Now the question is what are the chances of that actual quantity matching exactly with that random number?
There is just not enough numerical data to draw any conclusion.
@@alexxx4434 Quotation is about probability of three digit number coming correct, in this case let us assume between 800 & 999.
@@anirudhadhote Then the chance is 1/200, i.e. 0.5%
If u Notice that the 2 wooden Sculptures in the background on the table represent the PI Formula. I think that is so cool.😊
Why did the video go silent when she was explain. Thank you
The _They…_
13:50....? I always mentally enquire what they imply by the “Infinite” Universe.... when set against an “Unlimited” Universe!? In other words what is their distinction between ‘Infinity’ and ‘Unlimited’!? In anything? It seems to be they do not like striking striking a difference between computer ‘Zero’ and ‘One’!?
We do not have three types of probability. We just used probability to explain uncertainty in three different subjects.
❣
What is the relationship between probability and cause?
The classical probability of a ball rolling uphill = 0. In quantum mechanics the probability is > 0. Is there a cause? Or is it a fundamental property?
my brain has doubled in density because of this show
Does that mean you’re twice or half as smart?
~1735 Voltaire "Of first causes I know nought", says Nature when quizzed by a philosopher
probability in universal quantum consciousness; and human brain awareness of quantum consciousness as mind describing probability / mathematics?
probability is a good analytical tool to draw information/structure from seemingly random data...
You're probably right. 😂
I'll take the full half of the glass, this time, even though the other half is the most likely scenario :)
I disagree. Both Coppenhagen interpretation in physics and Information theory in digital science have shown that probability is a fundamental being of the universe. The video didn't mention that information and entropy in informational science are defined on probabilities. If you believe the information stored in your computers is a real being, then you have to believe that PDAS (probability ding an sich) is also a real being.
@@AkiraNakamoto probability of existence is 1... if you or anyone could prove it otherwise, please let me know...
@@r2c3 I am talking about the existence of a probability itself, aka. PDAS (probability ding an sich). What do you mean by "probability of existence is 1"? Whose existence?
Quantum entanglement can be defined as two separated particles sharing the SAME PDAS. Delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment can be explained perfectly by analyzing the shared PDAS's collapsing status.
In the quest of discovering the nature, mathematics goes sideways, instead of going forth. Using the knowledge (physics and math) we’ve gained inside our closest vicinity in terms of size ranges between the size of the atoms and the size of our planet will be less and less helpful (or, I’m confident, even valid) when we go to subatomic or intergalactic scales. Anything that contains or is using any kind of constants (c, h, e, pi) is fundamentally bound to our macroscopic reality which is, very obviously, only a subset of reality.
I would like to see if there is a new way of looking at data which transcends the limitations of probability.
Doesnt the multiverse violate the conservastion of energy law of thermodynamics?
How can the amount of energy required to make one decision "create and spawn infinite outcomes from the unchosen probabilities?"
In other words, the multiverse theory is conflating the concept of "all probabilities from 0% through 100%" with real outcomes of actions and interactions from making 1 choice and placing that energy into that 1 choice aka action and interaction.
Probability requires a "choice" to be made.
Chosing = a selection.
Selecting one particular choice out of 100 choices does not create 99 outcomes. It excludes 99 outcomes in favor of placing the energy into 1 choice aka action and interaction.
No other energy exists to create reality out of the 99 other excluded choices, since that energy was only enough to be used to create 1 choice outcome.
This is the law of conservation of energy working right before our very eyes.
The concept of a multiverse created by the unchosen probabilities that could have existed, is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
I think you need to reconsider your questions. Always.
There needs to be two understandings of the meaning of probabilities. In the world of mathematics where there are no limitations except those entered into the equations by the mathematician there is a wider range of expected outcomes. In the real world there are more concrete observations and limitations many of which we are not aware of their importance yet that determine a higher plausibility of an outcome. By looking at past results with nearly identical variables it is more likely that there is a higher degree of accuracy possible so zeroing in on probabilities though not perfect should yield better results.
Intuitively, there is no such thing as probability. Probability is necessary only when there is not enough information.
Probability is compression of time. It is state of entanglement.
Isn't probability maximally determinable dependent on the quantity and quality of information?
Hi Robert and Sebena. Two probability authorities joined our email discussions on fuzzy logic arguing that probability covers fuzzy logic, which I defend as the heir to Lotfi Zadeh, the father of fuzzy logic. I told them that probability is exact, and they left the discussion, without rebuttal. Is probability exact?
Great post!
Can a probability ever implicate the unknowable?
Catchy name, More about marketing than truth
@ 12:16 "The Deep Meaning" of probability in physics and cosmology is revealed in the the very 'scattershot' algorithm shared by the distribution of the galaxies in the cosmos and of the dandelion's seeds upon the wind -- the 'hope', if you will, that at least one will find purchase sufficient to enable the continuation of the magnificent [hi]story of the sensory self-awareness of existence.
In this grand self-story, the mechanism of the map-['on-board' cybernetic "self-in-environment"-model]-maker, and 'his' map(s), cannot be extricated from "the territory" which (s)he endeavors to map. Consciousness is a fundamentally dynamic self-constructing "intelligently self-aware" cybernetic Feedback Loop - which we "humans" had best quickly recognize and appreciate, if we value that title for ourselves and our species.
Self similarity but never absolutely the same driven by Heisenberg, you can have one universality or integratability, but not both. The more you zoom in the big picture gets fuzzy and the more you zoom out the details start missing. Without this mechanism, the universe cannot function. In needs to be re-invented (rejuvenated) locally (virtual particles in a medium, a “soup” called space-time) or it dies.
Oof, I had trouble following this one. Needed more foundational info
I think at the core of uncertainty (probability) in quantum mechanics is the impossibility of gaining complete information. That's actually not mysterious if you consider that there is no fundamental difference between what we call a measuring apparatus on the one hand and what we call an observed or measured object on the other. This is a genuinely existing hermeneutic circle. Einstein said, "The theory tells us what we can measure, and, in so doing, it tells us what we can meaningfully talk about." And he was aware that we can only measure what we can describe, and our description determines the measurements we make. But that didn't lead him to believe that uncertainty was insurmountable.
The problem there is that Einstein's criticisms of the probabilities in QM have been definitively refuted by subsequent evidence. At least, local hidden variables have been definitively ruled out. That leaves open the possibility that there are universal hidden variables, and there are various attempts to formalise and verify some superdeterministic theories, but universal hidden variables introduce a whole other set of issues.
@@simonhibbs887 I know, I think Einstein is "wrong" for the moment ;-)
Everything we all see is growing.
quantum probability is below 1, and is inverse to classic probability which is above 1?
I’ve never been able to get my head around half lives of radioactive elements: how does an atom “know” when to decay so that at scale we can accurately determine the half life of a chunk of it?
Absolutely right!
I'm quite sure you were always called out by your teachers for asking "But why..." questions!
You have touched on an extremely sensitive issue... as the cone of "education" grows, expands, and more and more of the population are covered by it, it produces an effect of "occlusivity" quite opposite to what education actually is. More and more education metamorphs into quasi-education and then into downright pseudo-education. Education degrades to teaching and programmed learning. People who question are forced to the margins - they are marginalised and that is a good thing! Because being on the margins of pseudo-education means that you are on the periphery of the cone of education. That's where the sun shines!
I know how they measure the half-life of elementary entities but that cannot be extrapolated to those elements that have fantastically slow radioactive decay rates. At least it cannot be determined by the usual scientific yardstick of "show me the definitive, empirical proof". Is it wrong? No. But it must be left open to question for further and future research. Don't close the question, don't stop questioning. Of course please don't become a basket case with a severe case of scientific scepticism. That leads to clinical psychosis. Don't go there.
HC-JAIPUR (05/Dec/2023)
.
We can determine the probability of the decay of a particle using quantum mechanics, which gives a precise mathematical expression for the calculation, called the Schrödinger equation.
one can not hold a meditation, only accept em.
Where is David Wallace
probability is just the hope/'lie that if one lived up to now ( despite how misersble/happy one may be ) that we may be happy tomorrow ... most humans live improbable lives.
might quantum probability be bounded by speed of causation / light squared, as quantum energy is mass multiplied by speed of causation / light squared?