probability - a philosophic or mathematical issue?
By Stephan
@stk40m (1119)
Koeln, Germany
November 29, 2012 5:57am CST
I often wonder what the world would look like if the laws of probability were different. Why for example is it that things occur with a more or less predictable probability, e.g. the numbers in a lottery game or dice or even something like mixing substances: the longer you mix two different colored sands for example the more even the mixture will get and stay like that after further mixing. One could also imagine that the grains of sand would mix in a way that the mixture becomes more uneven. A lot of industrial processes rely on the even mixture of substances, e.g. in the pharmaceutical, food and building material industry. If probability won't work like it does a lot of products would be impossible (or almost impossible) to manufacture. So what is it that makes probability so reliable for us? Is it mere mathermatics and physics or is there a driving ''force'' behind it, something or someone (?) that wants things to be like that? And if the latter, can we perhaps ''influence'' it?
1 person likes this
4 responses
@aabuda (1722)
• Philippines
30 Nov 12
I think it is not more on Mathematics...there is really a "force" behind everything in this world which we cannot explain. Such a great example is how a particular person won in a lottery three times already!
@stk40m (1119)
• Koeln, Germany
30 Nov 12
yeah, I have heard about a similar case in Germany where someone won the lottery twice. Mathematics is a very helpful tool to understand the nature of the universe but it may be just that. At school we were told that there's even a tiny probability that one can pass through a wall without as if it wasn't there. Now imagine you could make certainty out of probability. Virtually everything would be possible. Like walking on water, teleporting, telekinesis etc.
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
29 Nov 12
I'm very interested in a thing they call "the anthropic principal" - scientists have found that on the most basic level, on the smallest level of atoms, etc, when someone is watching, the behavior of these atoms are different than when no one is watching! This raises a whole bunch of questions.
- I figure if there is scientific law, there is design. I think the whole theist / atheist debate should move on to the next level, namely "what sort of intelligence is behind all that is?" - All living things follow the instructions in the dna coding. Where does information (coding) and instructions come from? So very many people think that somehow man's atheistic theory has been proven. This is because they think macro evolution is the same as micro, which is natural selection, key word "selection" in that nothing NEW is evolved. On one island chickadees need longer beaks to get to food, so the chickadees which have longer beaks in their dna thrive, while slowly the shorted beaked (dna coded) ones die out.. this is separation and selection, not evolving new traits.. On another Island perhaps longer beaks are a detriment, so the opposite occurs. This is natural selection, not birds evolving from dinosaurs, which yes is a theory. There's many dog species - always in the dog kind. But there is no dog/cat.
- But I've strayed from the topic, yes?
@stk40m (1119)
• Koeln, Germany
29 Nov 12
quote ''But I've strayed from the topic, yes?''
hmm, let's be diplomatic: the mylot category ''thinker'' is correct
no problem if you want to dig into evolution, have been digging there cpl of days ago as well
yep, what you initially say is what actually made me start this discussion. I watched a video on Werner Heisenberg yesterday. The guy was a prominent physicist in the first half of the 20th century. And Einstein's provocative question: does the Moon exist if nobody looks at it? It seems as if some physicists try to combine consciousness with physics and so I thought maybe probability is an entrance of the former into the latter. Our minds ''influencing'' the ''real'' world. But I've been pondering about that for a long time already.
As for evolution I see another possible entrance of consciousness into pure science or into the real world. My equation is simple: consciousness x suitable matter = life. Almost as simple as E = mc² 
so if suitable matter = 0 then life = 0, whereas consciousness is a constant, i.e. it cannot be zero but it's always the same, similar to the speed of light which is also a constant.
no problem if you want to dig into evolution, have been digging there cpl of days ago as well
yep, what you initially say is what actually made me start this discussion. I watched a video on Werner Heisenberg yesterday. The guy was a prominent physicist in the first half of the 20th century. And Einstein's provocative question: does the Moon exist if nobody looks at it? It seems as if some physicists try to combine consciousness with physics and so I thought maybe probability is an entrance of the former into the latter. Our minds ''influencing'' the ''real'' world. But I've been pondering about that for a long time already.
As for evolution I see another possible entrance of consciousness into pure science or into the real world. My equation is simple: consciousness x suitable matter = life. Almost as simple as E = mc² so if suitable matter = 0 then life = 0, whereas consciousness is a constant, i.e. it cannot be zero but it's always the same, similar to the speed of light which is also a constant.
@rog0322 (2829)
• Cagayan De Oro, Philippines
29 Nov 12
Hi,
It is a branch of Statistics, an exact mathematical science, so it is more of mathematics than Philosophy. The rules are fixed and immutable so it is not possible to "influence" its outcome. It is used mostly in measurement to describe a phenomenon, an experiment or an event to gain insights and make sound conclusions to guide further actions to attain the desired effect. Probability is useful in research and other scientific fields such as product development and nuclear physics or molecular biology.
@stk40m (1119)
• Koeln, Germany
29 Nov 12
hmm, you said that it is impossible to influence an outcome. But if there are multiple possible outcomes what decides which outcome will take place if all outcomes are for example same likely? I'm not a quantum physicist but they often say that the mere act of a measurement - i.e. no physical interaction - decides the location and velocity of the electron in an atom for example. Wouldn't that be some sort of influencing the outcome?
@StLouisMetroTutoring (678)
• St. Peters, Missouri
29 Nov 12
When I think about things like this, it helps me to remember that nature came first and the laws of science are manmade and just a description of what naturally happens. While this might seem like semantics, I think it's an important distinction to make for this conversation. What this means is that everything is nature happens, presumably has been happening, in a certain way. The laws are merely a way to describe these actions and predict what will happen in the future. To me, that would indicate there are choices as to how things happen. They naturally happen a certain way. We're bystanders. Of course, when I say there are no choices, I mean ordinary choices like we have. That isn't to say a higher force didn't create this pattern and therefore have control over whether the pattern will stay consistent or not.
In my personal belief system, a higher power, God, created all and therefore can determine whether our laws of science will in fact predict what will happen in the future. I don't think there's anything we, as humans, can do to influence the outcome of natural forces outside of the laws of science. Things are so reliaable because God made them that way, and God can change them in the future.
@stk40m (1119)
• Koeln, Germany
29 Nov 12
what I meant by influence is influence on probability. For example could it be possible to influence - in a non-physical manner - lottery or influence the behavior of other systems where probability allows different outcomes. The main question that I ask myself and you all of course is who or what decides the probabilities. Simple example: dice. If you roll the dice the probability for any of the numbers to appear is 1/6. So if you roll the dice 6 times you would expect a result where any of the 6 numbers appear once as most likely. But as we all know this isn't always the case. Thus my question is: is this merely due to different ways of throwing the dice or how it hits the table OR is there more behind it? i.e. can we influence an outcome with our mind or which is the driving force that makes the ''laws'' of probability met. In the example above there is also a probibility that you throw the dice a 100 times and each time it shows number 1. It is very unlikely but it may happen. But who/ what makes it happen?
