What is the Deep Meaning of Probability? | Episode 2206 | Closer To Truth
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.com/register/
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.
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 KZhead 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.
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.
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?
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.
RLK is the 🐐
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.
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...
Excellent... ofcourse SabineHossen Felder is the best in all aspects... thanks 🙏❤.
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.
Beautiful and poetic treatment
I love the intro
Happy to see you’re still searching! Looking forward to watching this after finals!
Best of luck! 💫
Just discovered this channel. This exploration of randomness and probability is excellent.
We're so happy you found us! 💫
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. 😊
Their chairs are awesome
The second type (for large numbers, small probability) the distribution is not called Gaussian, it is Poisson.
This series is just amazing
7:00 I thought he was going to go to Vegas when he wanted to observe probability in the wild.
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.
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?
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'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
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.
Very interesting. Thanks. Many in one and one in many?
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.
Pretty trippy! I have a name for the new future math that explains it all...Triptonometry!
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
Basic stuff with a huge amount of poetic wording
Awesome channel!
I don't think we'll get the answers but his questions are very illuminating.
God bless you
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.
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!!!!!
Chaos? Turbulence? Complexity? Incompleteness? Indeterminacy? Like, the way stuff actually works, not the way we humans want it to work?
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
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?
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.
If u Notice that the 2 wooden Sculptures in the background on the table represent the PI Formula. I think that is so cool.😊
Nice !
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.
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?
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.
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.
_"Making any kind of assumption about the probability of the constants of nature in a space that we cannot really observe is not proper science"_ I love this so much. Whenever people speak to the probability of this reality (or more accurately, your personal experience and perception of it) being a simulation vs a dream vs whatever, it always baffles me. In order to say _anything_ about that probability, you'd need to step outside this reality -- outside your own experience/phaneron -- to view the entire possibility space. But you cannot do that. At a very fundamental level, there seems to be no way of determining precise probabilities. If you cannot step outside your experience to determine what the probability is that you're in a simulation, then that probability is unknown. But to make a claim such as _"The sun will rise at 7am"_ implicitly hangs on the assumption that this is not a simulation which the devs are about to shut down. But if that probability is unknown, then what _really_ is the mathematical probability the sun will rise? One way I like to look at it: probability is often and perhaps very fundamentally nothing more than a measure of human ignorance. There is no "real" probability, only things we don't know. If your friend puts a coin in their left hand behind their back, then from your perspective there's a 50/50 chance it's in your friend's left hand. From their perspective, there's a 100% chance it's in their left hand because they have more information. The weather forecast tomorrow is 20% chance of rain. What is the probability of rain, though, from the perspective of the universe?
It baffles you that humans make assumptions about reality based on a limited number and scope of observations and don't consider that they might be wrong?
Yes ! You are speaking the truthzzz! Small correction - The sun will rise assumption is based on induction argument. Which is the case with all probabilities. It seems not philosophically coherent to base ones ultimate prediction of the future upon reasoning based in induction. But thats what we got. And I agree , to me probability is an effect of ignorance - and even if nature itself is stochastic, that itself would also need a better explanation than probability labels.
A fun example is to think of yourself , given the task to figure out the nature of some data. You are then given the results of a dicethrow performed next door, and so it continues. From your perspective you are given a string a data, that seems to imply probability is at work. You then continue to dissect the data and find its a stochastic process with a uniform distribution on the space [1..6]. Bravo , we still are completely clueless of the simple dynamic we are observing is just a 6-sided dice with a deterministic behaviour............ (of course in reality you would figure this out, but I hope you get the philosophical reasoning)
@@jonaswox > The sun will rise assumption is based on induction argument I have to think about this some more, but I'd like to share my initial thoughts 🙂 When I said that, I was thinking more along the lines of Bayesian probability -- X has some probability given the probabilities of Y and Z. I would *cautiously* lean towards saying we often if not always (even if subconsciously) use Bayes' Theorem when calculating probabilities; we simply insert a best guess for Y and Z if we have that information. When we don't, I might frame it as assuming a probability of 0%, 50%, or 100% (whichever is most applicable) for Y and Z. To continue my previous example, I would agree that claiming a 100% chance of a sunrise tomorrow is based on induction, but I would frame it as _assuming a 100% chance of a sunrise tomorrow is based off prior observations AND implicitly assumes a 0% chance that this is a simulation about to be shut down._ However, I do get your point about probabilities being calculated through induction -- observation, data, and analysis that form a probability space. I don't think Bayesian probability and induction are mutually exclusive; the former depends on the latter. The question I find myself asking is simply whether looking at the sunrise example from the context of Bayes' Theorem -- not just induction -- is reasonable / representative of reality / representative of how we operate. And that's about where my thoughts end lol. I see what you're saying and think it makes sense. I also think my framing makes sense. I'm not sure if there's any functional or pragmatic difference between the two? Or if one is _better_ or closer to reality than the other in some way? Ultimately, both describe the same thing: we don't factor in the probability that this is a simulation when calculating the probability of a sunrise. The biggest difference, I think, is that the Bayesian framing simply emphasizes that we're missing that information? But I really don't know what to make of it haha; I'm not a statistician or mathematician and only an armchair philosopher. What are your thoughts?
Aductive reasoning or "best guess". No need to evoke complex theorems, unless the object under consideration requires more precision or "articulation" than is provided by the sort of "ball park" guesses we commonly rely on anyway. In our day, "picking odds out of a hat" is the various labels we attach to perceived arrangements. While the universe is not a performance, or existential -- yet "we" are. As for sunrise and reliability thereof: for our purposes, "causality" holds, at least until the end of the present arrangement. Hume's skepticism, however, has forever put the whole affair of causal explanation to a disadvantage. Which makes it an assumption, even as the cue ball smacks into the 8 ball. And then we're back to probability, regardless.@@dismalthoughts
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.
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.
Probability is a measurement of the future; there is before you know a thing and afterward, a temporal ordering
I think you need to reconsider your questions. Always.
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
@23:51 In other words, "RANDOMNESS IS JUST AN ILLUSION., NOT TIME"
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 ?
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.
The probability of human existence is impossible that it seems unnatural but it is natural.
my brain has doubled in density because of this show
Does that mean you’re twice or half as smart?
@22:12 the speaker says "inculcate," but he meant "innoculate."
Great post! Can a probability ever implicate the unknowable?
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. 😂
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
Everything we all see is growing.
probability in universal quantum consciousness; and human brain awareness of quantum consciousness as mind describing probability / mathematics?
❣
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.
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%
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?
As a doctor probability is important central in medical science. I see probability as a tool. A tool that has many inborn weaknesses. It helps us to vision large numbers simplified. But the main weakness is that the world as we see it has to be "translated" into numbers. Probability is a mathematical method and it does not care what the numbers mean. So when I as a doctor want to use probability I have to decide which numbers to assign to the effect I want to study. Ex. if I study pain, the intensity of the pain is assigned a number, but is this really a good measure of pain. Is the pain really physical or is the pain more a symptom of fear of pain and is this the same in all patients? We use uncertainty to explain this phenomenon, but is my way of translating medical symptoms to numbers correct and does the patients understand the problem the same way. Medicine includes many variables and am I studying the correct aspect of the problem. In the 80`s Helicobacter pylori was discovered as the case of stomach ulcers. Before this we though that stomach ulcers were cause by stomach acid and there were many studies using to confirm that stomach acid was the cause of these ulcers. The method of probability was correct, our understanding was wrong.
Probability Theory is a placeholder until we learn what’s true
Anybody know who the artist and what the song were for the soundtrack starting a 24:22? Thanks in advance for your help!
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.
Reality has the highest probability...for quantum phenomena to be seen
Computers give us the probability possibilities with this or that scenario
~1735 Voltaire "Of first causes I know nought", says Nature when quizzed by a philosopher
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 would like to see if there is a new way of looking at data which transcends the limitations of probability.
might quantum probability be bounded by speed of causation / light squared, as quantum energy is mass multiplied by speed of causation / light squared?
It's possible I agree
first guest made a bit of a mess trying to give an explanation of the CLT 🥰
Catchy name, More about marketing than truth
I'm surprised that there was no discussion of chaos theory
Probability is the shadow of the true structure of the universe.Kinda like tossing a coin. Probablity shows you the structure of the coin.
Can you please fix the audio and reupload? Thanks.
Personally, Laplace's daemon makes us think about probabilities as observer-centric. There is no randomness in base reality, there are no uncertainties in reality. Probabilities emerge from a lack of fundamental information. Whether quantum mechanical or relativistic, probabilities exist because of our inherent ignorance, and not because the universe is undecided about an outcome
That’s the idea that outcomes in quantum mechanics are determined by ‘hidden variables’ that deterministically account further a given result, but appear random because we can’t measure them. Recent verifications of Bell’s Theorem has ruled out local hidden variables, but some teams are working on superdeterministic theories that include non-local hidden variables.
Actually, life, imo, seems full of uncertainty, especially at the smaller intervals. You can have long term goals and require dozens of dozens of decisions to get there.
like to play pick 3 game?
@@XvonPocalypse >"The universe does not know the future . ?" Is there any reason or evidence to suppose that it does? Can you give an account of what 'the universe' knowing anything means?
Personally I think Laplace and his followers are wrong. Both Coppenhagen interpretation in physics and Information theory in digital science have shown that probability is a fundamental being of the universe. Let me call it as "PDAS = probability ding an sich" (per Kant's nomenclature). Then I am saying that none of the interviewees really thinks PDAS exists. Most of the commentators also have this negative view on PDAS. I am a computational scientist. 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 is also a real being.
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 ;-)
Oof, I had trouble following this one. Needed more foundational info
What is the deep meaning of gullibility?
quantum probability is below 1, and is inverse to classic probability which is above 1?
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.
As we know, probability is defined as the ratio of the number of favourable cases (n) to the whole number of cases possible (N): P:=n/N. What will change if we define probability as a general or some specific function of this ratio - P:=f(n/N), for example, P:=(n/N)^2 ?
Information is defined as -1*log2(Probability(x)) where x is a random variable.
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.
Maths is like language, understanding language doesn't meat understanding culture though the later is understandable by the earlier
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.
Probability in QM may only be epistemic, not ontologic.
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’!?
What is random?
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.
Isn't probability maximally determinable dependent on the quantity and quality of information?
We could live in a universe where a dice always end with 6 eyes up just because it can
Or bogosort always works on the first try every time.
Why ate 16:53 the voice cut off !!!
I wonder if probability is just a product of Humanities' evolved way of perceiving a Universe that at it's fundamental level is it's own most compact computation of itself!!
I’m only interested in math , physics, chemistry ( astronomy ) in how they can improve and protect _human_ life . I’m an anthropology professor and humanist.