Well I said something about this in an earlier thread!
I find it quite funny the idea of putting a probability on probability?
Is that even possible? Probably I guess.
Or is it. We are using the rules of probability to put a probability on probability itself. Lol. Weird.
Here's a from an earlier thread of mine(Probability and Evidence):
I said: [...] "I'm confused lol, nothing is proven, it's all about probability, except probability, that's proven?
Or is there merely a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% reccuring probability that probability exists...
Basically I'm saying If nothing is proven everything needs probability...do you have to put a probability on the existence of probability?"
And then: "[...]I'm basically saying either probability is 100% proved truth...or you have to put a probability on the existence of probability! "
So I'm basically trying to continue what I thought to be a very interesting discussion that developed naturally and unintentionally when originally talking about the subject between the relationship between evidence and probability. I did not expect if to go onto trying to either put a probability on the existence of probability itself or consider probability to be the only thing that is absolutely 100 percent proven and known absolutely for CERTAIN....
The existence of probability is the only thing that we cannot put a probability on - it is the only thing we know for SURE. Or we have to put a probability on probability itself. Lol. Interesting I think.
And Josef mentioned Karl Popper and I'd like to hear more thoughts on the subject.
@ Darwinian;
Yes! Its confusing. Can probability be described as correct or incorrect? If it can't and it just has to be accepted 100% - isn't that kind of weird that everything has to be based on probability ... EXCEPT probability itself which has to be just accepted with 100% certainty?
Whether that be the case or not. I still do not really understand!?!? And I find it odd and interesting, and perhaps the main reason I find it interesting (perhaps the only reason?) is that its odd - or at least seems odd to ME. It seems like an interesting anomaly.
Or is it one? is it just an illusion? If the problem can be somehow solved (or is already solved somehow, somewhere by someone or some people?!? I dunno?) - that's obviously great. - It would be no fun and not as inspiring if there were never and rainbows to unweave.
And if this is already solved or not as odd as I think it is - then its not such an interesting anomaly.
Well actually if its already solved - is it an anomaly at all? Well other than those who think it is (at least myself) - I guess it isn't in that case.
Or rather - was it ever one?
Now I'm really confused. I've confused myself now.
Interesting Leo - intuitively at least that makes complete sense to me. The probably of probability is very probably very high.
Probably very very high indeed I would have thought probably just about (or exactly, perhaps?) the highest you can get. Makes complete sense intuitively to me...
But what I find really weird is we are using the laws of probability itself to insist that probability itself is very probable? Confuses me? I find it interestingly confusing. I can imagine thats correct but its just weird.
The laws of probability itself determine that the laws of probabilty itself's existence is very probable indeed.
Based on the laws of probabilty that is.
Its like circular reasoning that actually WORKS and self-evidently supports itself somehow?
Everything is based on the laws of probability therefore the laws of probability are very very probably self evident (in the sense nothing seems to be certain at all. We can only work with probabilities)
It is almost certain based on the laws of probability that the laws of probability exist.
Probability confirms probability. Cool - and weird and interesting.
So is there a chance that the laws of probability could be wrong? However small?
If the laws of probability needs to have a probability put on it?
Or that in other universes there (SOMEHOW! I can't imagine it! But hypothetically speaking) could be DIFFERENT kinds of laws of probability?
How on earth would that work?
Although it wouldn't be earth would it?
Unless its a parallel universe earth or something...!!!
Anyways - thoughts?
Evf
I find it quite funny the idea of putting a probability on probability?
Is that even possible? Probably I guess.
Or is it. We are using the rules of probability to put a probability on probability itself. Lol. Weird.
Here's a from an earlier thread of mine(Probability and Evidence):
I said: [...] "I'm confused lol, nothing is proven, it's all about probability, except probability, that's proven?
Or is there merely a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% reccuring probability that probability exists...
Basically I'm saying If nothing is proven everything needs probability...do you have to put a probability on the existence of probability?"
And then: "[...]I'm basically saying either probability is 100% proved truth...or you have to put a probability on the existence of probability! "
So I'm basically trying to continue what I thought to be a very interesting discussion that developed naturally and unintentionally when originally talking about the subject between the relationship between evidence and probability. I did not expect if to go onto trying to either put a probability on the existence of probability itself or consider probability to be the only thing that is absolutely 100 percent proven and known absolutely for CERTAIN....
The existence of probability is the only thing that we cannot put a probability on - it is the only thing we know for SURE. Or we have to put a probability on probability itself. Lol. Interesting I think.
And Josef mentioned Karl Popper and I'd like to hear more thoughts on the subject.
@ Darwinian;
Yes! Its confusing. Can probability be described as correct or incorrect? If it can't and it just has to be accepted 100% - isn't that kind of weird that everything has to be based on probability ... EXCEPT probability itself which has to be just accepted with 100% certainty?
Whether that be the case or not. I still do not really understand!?!? And I find it odd and interesting, and perhaps the main reason I find it interesting (perhaps the only reason?) is that its odd - or at least seems odd to ME. It seems like an interesting anomaly.
Or is it one? is it just an illusion? If the problem can be somehow solved (or is already solved somehow, somewhere by someone or some people?!? I dunno?) - that's obviously great. - It would be no fun and not as inspiring if there were never and rainbows to unweave.
And if this is already solved or not as odd as I think it is - then its not such an interesting anomaly.
Well actually if its already solved - is it an anomaly at all? Well other than those who think it is (at least myself) - I guess it isn't in that case.
Or rather - was it ever one?
Now I'm really confused. I've confused myself now.
Interesting Leo - intuitively at least that makes complete sense to me. The probably of probability is very probably very high.
Probably very very high indeed I would have thought probably just about (or exactly, perhaps?) the highest you can get. Makes complete sense intuitively to me...
But what I find really weird is we are using the laws of probability itself to insist that probability itself is very probable? Confuses me? I find it interestingly confusing. I can imagine thats correct but its just weird.
The laws of probability itself determine that the laws of probabilty itself's existence is very probable indeed.
Based on the laws of probabilty that is.
Its like circular reasoning that actually WORKS and self-evidently supports itself somehow?
Everything is based on the laws of probability therefore the laws of probability are very very probably self evident (in the sense nothing seems to be certain at all. We can only work with probabilities)
It is almost certain based on the laws of probability that the laws of probability exist.
Probability confirms probability. Cool - and weird and interesting.
So is there a chance that the laws of probability could be wrong? However small?
If the laws of probability needs to have a probability put on it?
Or that in other universes there (SOMEHOW! I can't imagine it! But hypothetically speaking) could be DIFFERENT kinds of laws of probability?
How on earth would that work?
Although it wouldn't be earth would it?
Unless its a parallel universe earth or something...!!!
Anyways - thoughts?
Evf
