Glenn,
This topic was well-developed in the last century. The probabilists
argued the issues thoroughly. But I find what the philosophers of
science have to say about the subject a little more pertinent to what
you are asking, since your discussion seems to be somewhat ontological.
In particular I'm thinking of Peirce, Popper and especially Mario Bunge.
The latter two had to account for quantum theory, so are a little more
pertinent - and interesting. I can give you more specific references if
you are interested.
Take care,
Grant
On 12/12/16 4:47 PM, glen ☣ wrote:
I have a large stash of nonsense I could write that might be on topic. But the
topic coincides with an argument I had about 2 weeks ago. My opponent said
something generalizing about the use of statistics and I made a comment (I
thought was funny, but apparently not) that I don't really know what statistics
_is_. I also made the mistake of claiming that I _do_ know what probability
theory is. [sigh] Fast forward through lots of nonsense to the gist:
My opponent claims that time (the experience of, the passage of, etc.) is required by
probability theory. He seemed to hinge his entire argument on the vernacular concept of
an "event". My argument was that, akin to the idea that we discover (rather
than invent) math theorems, probability theory was all about counting -- or measurement.
So, it's all already there, including things like power sets. There's no need for time
to pass in order to measure the size of any given subset of the possibility space.
In any case, I'm a bit of a jerk, obviously. So, I just assumed I was right
and didn't look anything up. But after this conversation here, I decided to
spend lunch doing so. And ran across the idea that probability is the forward
map (given the generator, what phenomena will emerge?) and statistics is the
inverse map (given the phenomena you see, what's the generator?). And although
neither of these really require time, per se, there is a definite role for
[ir]reversibility or at least asymmetry.
So, does anyone here have an opinion on the ontological status of one or both probability
and/or statistics? Am I demonstrating my ignorance by suggesting the "events" we
study in probability are not (identical to) the events we experience in space & time?
On 12/11/2016 11:31 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Would the following work?
*/Imagine you enter a casino that has a thousand roulette tables. The rumor
circulates around the casino that one of the wheels is loaded. So, you call up
a thousand of your friends and you all work together to find the loaded wheel.
Why, because if you use your knowledge to play that wheel you will make a LOT
of money. Now the problem you all face, of course, is that a run of successes
is not an infallible sign of a loaded wheel. In fact, given randomness, it is
assured that with a thousand players playing a thousand wheels as fast as they
can, there will be random long runs of successes. But the longer a run of
success continues, the greater is the probability that the wheel that produces
those successes is biased. So, your team of players would be paid, on this
account, for beginning to focus its play on those wheels with the longest runs.
/*
FWIW, this, I think, is Peirce’s model of scientific induction.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
