NationStates Jolt Archive

My question is this, can an event which is not given as a condition, or is not allready true, ever have a probability of 1?

There may be examples where probability can = 1 but i have not come up with any yet...

For example, the probability of the sun rising tomorow.... it has a very high probability indeed, infact even if the earths orbit and roation changes within a certain limit the sun will still rise (relative to areas that is rises allready)

However can this probability = 1?

Two questions arise.... The first is that it depends on how many variables you account for, if you take every variable in the universe and conclude that nothing will effect the sun or earth enough so as to stop the sun rising as normal tommorow (eg meteorite) which leads to the second question... Does 'random' exist, this is another issue alltogether but if there is such a thing as random then you simply cannot count all variables, because they are not certain

This again leads back to the question of 1 being an impossible probability, if random exists does that not in and of ITSELF mean that nothing can have a probability of 1?


(this is of course hypothetical, since you cannot realisticly take all variables in the universe into account)

I heard once of a philosophy which approched this issue, and theorised that nothing can have a probability of 1 due the the IMMENSELY small possibility of something totally whacked out like the universe exploding, or time reversing or whacked out crap like that. It dealt again with infinity, and the idea of if infinity exists then there must be infinate possiblities, and possibly even the case that everything 'does' exist

Of course this last paragraph may well be whacked out but im just giving some background information

How about "You will die"? After all, that is life's only certainty. Death, surely, has a probabilty of 1?

Matter cannot escape a black hole once it crosses the event horizon, it is lost forever in the hole at the singularity. That would likely be 1, although no black holes have yet been decisively confirmed.

How about "You will die"? After all, that is life's only certainty. Death, surely, has a probabilty of 1?
Surely life was a probability to begin with that was not certain, so how can death be a probability that is certain?

I'm such a philosopher.

How about "You will die"? After all, that is life's only certainty. Death, surely, has a probabilty of 1?

In Theory i wouldn't be too sure, if there is even one possible EXACT series of events which result in you escaping the aging process then i guess it wouldnt be 1.... however this creates a paradox, because for you to be able to not ever die, then the probability of you living forever would have to be 1 as a condition... however this conditions 'independantly' can exist... ok wait im confused

if the probability of you dieing is not 1 then the probability of you living forever doesnt have to be 1 by default, only if you are talking directly about the condition of you not dieing resulting in the probability of you living for ever being 1...

ok yeah i think i saved that one lol

As for the black hole, this is the kind of thing the concept of probability has implications on, if it was deemed that nothing had a probability of 1 then it may open doorways into issues such as this... If it is the case that truly, when something enters a black hole it cannot escape is it not viewed as something which is true, much the same as when something has been said, the 'probability that it has been said' is 1.

Again this train of thought could lead to breakthroughs, or at least questions, which would never be considered using mathematics (for example)

How about droping something in the confines of earths gravity it will hit the ground or something conected to it?

some things like definit measurements are ture. There are always 1000g in a kg. Also maybe the laws of physics?

Due to the random nature of Quantum Physics, all sorts of matter amalgamations are possible, however small the chance. The path to the black hole is simply the most likely, so in all probability a particle could escape. It's perfectly possible for a kid to say "heads or tails" and then the coin hits the floor and turns into a chicken, picking up a random kitchen table (that was created due to several thousand obsolete computer mice rearranging their atomic structure into said table) with it's newly-formed supermuscles and running off. If we're talking about forever, from now into an infinite point in the future, then nothing is certain.

How about droping something in the confines of earths gravity it will hit the ground or something conected to it?

The object could land on a vehicle destined for space, during it's launch phase, thus not being connected to the ground, and would never hit the ground if it subsequently got carried into orbit.

Due to the random nature of Quantum Physics, all sorts of matter amalgamations are possible, however small the chance. The path to the black hole is simply the most likely, so in all probability a particle could escape. It's perfectly possible for a kid to say "heads or tails" and then the coin hits the floor and turns into a chicken, picking up a random kitchen table (that was created due to several thousand obsolete computer mice rearranging their atomic structure into said table) with it's newly-formed supermuscles and running off. If we're talking about forever, from now into an infinite point in the future, then nothing is certain.
Improbability Physics can teach you everything you need to know about philosophy :D

that is the question, unless we can (theoritically) isolate all possible variables then for all we know a time travelling Tyranosaurus rex with mutated opposable thumbs and wings could swoop down and catch the object before it hits the ground... Of course this is absolute rubbish, however this exessively ridiculous example cannot be ruled out without first setting certain conditions on other unknowns (random, infinity, as mentioned in first post)

Being slightly more realistic, a freak wind storm could swipe the object up into the sky before it hits the ground, the object could get stuck on a launching moon mission and end up in orbit... A heavier object maybe could be struck by lightening mid descent, dissintegrate and its components float off into the air.

Another Idea is the world could simply explode...

Unless EVERYTHING which may effect an event from occuring is completely ruled out then i say the possibility does not = 1

edit> this was in response to post #6, and LOL @ the similarities between mine and some of your posts

we had a quantum mechanics speaker at school today, he was showing us all this wierd stuff quantum mechanics can do.


But, one of his main points was that there can never be a probability of 1. He stated that with new information comes disruption of the informational system, this altering the outcome. basically, everytime you find something new out about a system, your probability of having a 100% correct answer goes down.

Due to the random nature of Quantum Physics, all sorts of matter amalgamations are possible, however small the chance. The path to the black hole is simply the most likely, so in all probability a particle could escape. It's perfectly possible for a kid to say "heads or tails" and then the coin hits the floor and turns into a chicken, picking up a random kitchen table (that was created due to several thousand obsolete computer mice rearranging their atomic structure into said table) with it's newly-formed supermuscles and running off. If we're talking about forever, from now into an infinite point in the future, then nothing is certain.

And I thought I was a heavy drinker.

But, one of his main points was that there can never be a probability of 1. He stated that with new information comes disruption of the informational system, this altering the outcome. basically, everytime you find something new out about a system, your probability of having a 100% correct answer goes down.

So could there be a probability of 1 that the probability of 1 in quantum mechanics is impossible? Or would that also be included in the impossibility of P=1?

So could there be a probability of 1 that the probability of 1 in quantum mechanics is impossible? Or would that also be included in the impossibility of P=1?

There can never be a probablity of 1 (read: impossible for P = 1) because as soon as you find out about a probably system, then chances of your answer being 100% correct have alreayd dropped. You disrupted the system by finding something out about it.

i reffer you to the first post where i state that something which 'is allready true' or a set condition does not count... im talking about actual future events

No, nothing can be Probability = 1, because it cannot be proven that there is no God, and therefore, unfortunate as it is you must leave space for acts of God.

There can never be a probablity of 1 (read: impossible for P = 1) because as soon as you find out about a probably system, then chances of your answer being 100% correct have alreayd dropped. You disrupted the system by finding something out about it.

God, Quantum Mechanics are amazing. :)

and of course time traveling invisible martians with nanotechnology

ok, but seriously i saw an entire website dedicated to this, it was all very interesting, and hypothetically possible even if it was incredibly ridiculous lol

ill try to dig up the url, would make for a good sci fi novel

If you randomly select a real number, then (theoretically) the probability of it being irrational is 1. Realistically, damn near everyone except mathematicians would pick a rational number, including computers with "random number" generators, every single time (whereas I would probably pick sqrt(2)/pi^2, a half my friends would pick e). Thus, realistically, the chances of it would not be one.

Theoretically, there are an infinite number of things that yankee-made hotsauce could contain. However, realistically, the chances of those not including "vinegar" pretty well define "infintestimal." Thus, it is realistically 1.

So, fix a definition of "probability" (arbitrary), and follow one of the above.

whatever the hotsauce contains this is allready true, im not talking about looking at something and the probability that it is 'condition a'

If i write boob on my hand then the probability that i wrote boob on my hand is 1, i allready stated that this was not the issue i am reffering to, as for the number thing, the probability that they will pick a rational number is not one, they could spontaniously combust before they picked a number...
Going further into this, if the number they are going to chose is based on chemical and electrical impulses in thier brain, then hypothetically the number they are going to chose is not a probability but a predictable fact... again we get into quantum physics and i dont know what im talking about

edit> Just to be a little clearer i am talking about future events and thier probabilities

Well the probability that 1+1=2 (in base 10) is 1.

reigab, that is a pre set condition, again refer to the example of me writing boob on my hand....

Saying that something which is allready true has a probability of one is not n argument

Ah ok I see what you mean, I didn't see yours because we posted at the same time.

its ok, infact when i was presented with a similar example as you just gave i was convinced by it... only upon further consideration i decided that once something is allready true then it is not in the realm of probability

Exactlly, when first thought about my argument seems perfectly sound untill you think more indepth as you did.

its called marijuana :D

Oh! so that's your secret. :eek:

i must admit i am rusty since i havnt smoked in a while, all my deeper thoughts are simply memories of stoned ponderings....

Talking of deeper thoughts, are thoughts affected by probability or would anyone tend more towards determinism? I still cannot decide my position on this, and due to my weak knowledge of quantum physics i am unable to comment

Are thoughts

random (in the true sense of the word unlimited number of probabilities/possibilities)?

not random but not certain? (limited number of probabilities)

determined?

What is the probability of there being nothing for which P = 1?
There has to be something for which P=1, else the above probability would be 1, which would mean that there was something for which P = 1 which makes the above probability false (it can never be certian that nothing is certain as that's a logical impossibility).

Ok, so i'm not being 100% serious here, but i'd be interested to hear someone disprove it. Perhaps it's all just very silly, i don't have the patience to sit here and exhaustively think it out :p

im not going to disprove it, im just going to say that YET AGAIN this is not about conditions or events which are allready true :D

If nothing had a probability of 1 then this would be a condition, or a fact, such as the condition that i am a male and the fact that i have a penis

You see??? It makes sense tho rite

edit> i adressed this in my first post, got confused, then elaborated on it, i also mentioned various times that something which is allready true, is not in the realm of probability... The only things we can approach are real events that may or may not happen.

To set a condition to which a certain outcome is impossible, then this 'impossibility' is not in the realm of probability as the outcome is allready set... this can only be in cases where all variables can be accounted for, which again raises this question, are there cases where we really can account for all variables?

To elaborate, to set a condition in which something is 'true' then its probability is not 1, since it is a certainty not effected by probability... im talking about events which actually occur, sun rising, people spontaneously combusting, rappers killing eachother etc... To ask the question, is this event currently true and therefore its probability is 1 or 0 is not probability.

omg im ranting

So is there a probability of 1 that nothing has a probability of 1? :confused:

Oh god my brain

limited number of thoughts.

You have determined thoughts, but there are outside factors, such as input given to your brain.
A blind person will *never* paint a perfect visual portrait of an elephant if unaided.
I will *never* write a treatise on the treatment of slaves in colonial america if I've never heard of a slave, or America, in my life.
Having said that, with variable input, our brains can create an almost limitless number of thoughts. And adding in random chemical fluctuation, brain damage, different people having different brain structures etc. we are aproaching an infinite number of different possible thoughts. (but not completely random thoughts, see above about blind people painting)

And yes, you could argue that by some extreme fluke of luck a blind person may happen to paint random swatches of color and come up with an elephant. That's not the same, that's just random chance. The blind person never *thought* of an elephant and intentionally painted it.

as for probability, just because randomness exists doesn't mean something can't exist at p=1. Lock an immortal cat in an inescapable room, with a mouse. Make the immortal cat want to kill the mouse, no matter what. The mouse can randomly run where it likes in this inescapable room, but at some point, it will die. With complete probability. Regardless of the random elements of it choosing where to run. Silly example, I know, but the existence of randomness doesn't preclude 100% probability.

I do believe there are aspects that have probability of 1. Thinks like "will I live or die tomorrow" are binary. If I have a probability of .9 to live tomorrow, then I have a probability of .1 that I die.
Find a binary situation like that, where I have zero chance of one event, and you have a situation where p=1 for the other.

The probability of me failing to write Hamlet using only the letter "z" is p=1. You could argue that I could do something crazy like use combinations of the letter "z" to write a binary scheme that represents Hamlet. But we all know what I mean using the example.
You could argue I've *already* failed, because it's an impossible task. But that's exactly what p=0 means.

I haven't yet tried to write Hamlet using only "z". So it's not the same as writing "boob" on my hand then checking.

no, because if it were the case that nothing had a probability of one then this would simply be true

however if you wanted to look at it that way maybe the two probabilities tend towards 1, therefore both being true

make sense of that one, i dare ya!

edit> in response to post 32

limited number of thoughts.

You have determined thoughts, but there are outside factors, such as input given to your brain.
A blind person will *never* paint a perfect visual portrait of an elephant if unaided.
I will *never* write a treatise on the treatment of slaves in colonial america if I've never heard of a slave, or America, in my life.
Having said that, with variable input, our brains can create an almost limitless number of thoughts. And adding in random chemical fluctuation, brain damage, different people having different brain structures etc. we are aproaching an infinite number of different possible thoughts. (but not completely random thoughts, see above about blind people painting)

And yes, you could argue that by some extreme fluke of luck a blind person may happen to paint random swatches of color and come up with an elephant. That's not the same, that's just random chance. The blind person never *thought* of an elephant and intentionally painted it.

as for probability, just because randomness exists doesn't mean something can't exist at p=1. Lock an immortal cat in an inescapable room, with a mouse. Make the immortal cat want to kill the mouse, no matter what. The mouse can randomly run where it likes in this inescapable room, but at some point, it will die. With complete probability. Regardless of the random elements of it choosing where to run. Silly example, I know, but the existence of randomness doesn't preclude 100% probability.

I do believe there are aspects that have probability of 1. Thinks like "will I live or die tomorrow" are binary. If I have a probability of .9 to live tomorrow, then I have a probability of .1 that I die.
Find a binary situation like that, where I have zero chance of one event, and you have a situation where p=1 for the other.

The probability of me failing to write Hamlet using only the letter "z" is p=1. You could argue that I could do something crazy like use combinations of the letter "z" to write a binary scheme that represents Hamlet. But we all know what I mean using the example.
You could argue I've *already* failed, because it's an impossible task. But that's exactly what p=0 means.

I haven't yet tried to write Hamlet using only "z". So it's not the same as writing "boob" on my hand then checking.

Apparently (in the case of the cat and mouse) there is allways an extremely small chance (lets call this probability dx for arguments sake) that something will happen like the room exploding or whatever... furthermore the cat would have to have a probability of 1 of living forever for this condition to work... the only way you can have a probability of 1 is by setting an unnatural condition which also has a probability of 1 (if you see what i mean)

Binary, yes i agree entirely, but find something with a probability of zero (again saying, my name is not roger therefore the probability that my name is roger does not approach probability)

Hamlet, to set a condition where an event has a probability of 0 means that the outcome is not 0 due to probability but due to conditions... If you controll all variables you can create hypothetical situations where events may have a probability of 1 or 0, but the big question is again quantum physics, if an event is not given a condition where it is immedeately 0 or 1 (eg if i write nob on my forehead the probability that i wrote handle is 0) then there is allways a chance where something seeming impossible is minutely possible and something something seemingly certain is minutely uncertain...

Matter cannot escape a black hole once it crosses the event horizon, it is lost forever in the hole at the singularity. That would likely be 1, although no black holes have yet been decisively confirmed.

are there not some pholosiphers (sp?) that say a black hole is the fix to travel into the future? (since the past is imposible) even if there is not, or you do not beleave this, how do you know a black hole is not a hole to another dimention or somehitng? how do you know for a fact that it is lost forever, since noone or nothing that has entered has ever left, does not mean it stoped existing!

Apparently (in the case of the cat and mouse) there is allways an extremely small chance (lets call this probability dx for arguments sake) that something will happen like the room exploding or whatever... furthermore the cat would have to have a probability of 1 of living forever for this condition to work... the only way you can have a probability of 1 is by setting an unnatural condition which also has a probability of 1 (if you see what i mean)
Yes, there is a chance that the room will explode. Sorry for being unclear, that's not what I was trying to get at. What I was trying to illustrate is that, purely by virtue of there being random elements in the world, that does not mean that probability can't be 1. It does not mean that probability *is* one, just that we need another proof that p can never equal 1.
In the case of the cat + mouse, unrealistic as it is, the mouse is allowed to "randomly" run wherever it wants, but due to other factors, the randomness of the mouses running does not affect the probability.


Binary, yes i agree entirely, but find something with a probability of zero (again saying, my name is not roger therefore the probability that my name is roger does not approach probability)
I did. Writing Hamlet with only the letter "z".
See, your name is already set. What I'm going to do with my typewriter is not yet set. The fact that it only has the letter "z" is set. The fact that I *can't* write Hamlet only using the letter "z" is set. But I haven't yet attempted it. I haven't yet tried all possible combinations


Hamlet, to set a condition where an event has a probability of 0 means that the outcome is not 0 due to probability but due to conditions... If you controll all variables you can create hypothetical situations where events may have a probability of 1 or 0, but the big question is again quantum physics, if an event is not given a condition where it is immedeately 0 or 1 (eg if i write nob on my forehead the probability that i wrote handle is 0) then there is allways a chance where something seeming impossible is minutely possible and something something seemingly certain is minutely uncertain...
I don't control all variables. But I do control *some* variables. You *always* do when you specify a condition. If I say "the sun will rise tomorrow" I'm controlling the variables of what we are speaking about (the sun), what action will take place (rising) and the time (tomorrow).
I could just as easily say "the sun will explode tomorrow".
In the case of Hamlet, I'm controlling what we are speaking about (hamlet)
what action will take place "me writing it" and what letters I will use "z".

You'd have no objection if my example was "write a famous play, but don't use the letter H". The probability is low, but not 0.
Yet I can't write Hamlet without using the letter H.

Now, saying "a condition where it is automatically 0". OF COURSE I can give a condition where the probability is automatically 0! Otherwise what are we talking about?
If there isn't a condition, or combination of conditions, that leads to a probability of 0, then the event WILL NOT have a probability of 0. That's how conditions and probability works.
To say "there is 100% certainty that you will die" we are using the condition that all humans die. People may offer ways around that condition (meaning we didn't specify properly, and the condition was incorrect), or ways to show that the condition doesn't apply (freezing time?).
There may, potentially, be ways around many conditions. So what we need, to find something with p=0 or p=1 is to find a condition that *cannot* be circumvented.
If, when that happens, you just say "but that condition is immediately 0 or 1" then this discussion is meaningless.
The only way around that is to make a really complicated condition, so you don't *realize* that it is immediately 0 or 1.

I agree that it's not fair to use things that have already happened as examples. It's not fair to say the statement "My name is Ozymandias" has a probability of 0. In the case of Hamlet, it hasn't happened yet. It's not going to happen. I'm going to fail. That's obvious. That's what gives my failure p=1

If I can't give an example that will automatically result in success or failure due to the conditions, then I can't give an example with 100% probability. That's just how "probability" works.

isnt it a probability of one that i believe i have read the question

are there not some pholosiphers (sp?) that say a black hole is the fix to travel into the future? (since the past is imposible) even if there is not, or you do not beleave this, how do you know a black hole is not a hole to another dimention or somehitng? how do you know for a fact that it is lost forever, since noone or nothing that has entered has ever left, does not mean it stoped existing!
Um, it's not philosopers that say black holes are a way to travel to the future. That's science fiction writers.
See, black holes warp time around them, which is really interesting and cool.
And science fiction writers to "warp time? Cool! That could be a plausable scientific reason for my time travellers new warp engine".

We don't know a black hole isn't a hole to another dimension, any more than we know that your toaster isn't actually your mother. It could be true. It's just extremely unlikely, and there is no evidence to show it's true.

We know that things are lost forever in black holes, because of the increased gravity of the black holes, and gravity is caused by mass. And if the things absorbed by the black hole are going somewhere else, then why does their mass add to the gravity of the black hole?

Also, there is theoretical hawking radiation that is emitted from black holes. That, until recently, was only a theory, as it has never been observed. Recently some scientists in NY created a superhot fireball, that had similar properties to a black hole, and observed hawking radiation emitted, exactly as predicted.

So...the way black holes work is...matter goes in, and stays. Any excess energy is bled off as hawking radiation. No portals to other dimensions or times. Dissapointing, I know. But, still, it's exciting to imagine, and I'm going to keep reading science fiction, and dreaming about "what could be on the other side of a black hole". Even if I know it's just a story.

isnt it a probability of one that i believe i have read the question
yes and no.
Who is asking the question.
To you, it's a probability of 1, but also, to you, you already know the answer, it's happened in your past. So it doesn't count for this discussion.

For me, it's not a probability of 1, I don't know with 100% surety that you read the question, or that you believe you read it. You could have skipped to the last page and just posted that without knowing the rest.

the point is, your example is 'write something which contains all letters of the alphabet but you are not allowed to use any letters other than z'

this is like saying write z but you are not allowed to write z... this is a condition. You are prefixing the probability at 0 (if you want to see it in terms of probability) But this does not put the probability of me writing the letter z at 0 without the condition. With the condition there is no probability, the event is simply false. If you control variables and set probability at zero then probability does not exist.

and as i said before a probability can only be 1 or 0 if a condition is set which gives it that probability...Events such as the sun setting cannot be controlled with such conditions....

Dont get me wrong, i see your point but yet again i dont deem it to have anything to do with probability

I happen to know for a fact that, as we speak, the Andorian Star Alliance has trained a fusion-quenching optical laser device at our sun to trigger a supernova and harvest the solar resources within. They were about to pull the trigger when lobbyists from the Andorian Environmental Agency levelled a filibuster against the action, citing the presence of primitive life on the third planet.

It's only a matter of time before the measure's defeated in the Star Parliament though. So I really don't know if the sun will rise tomorrow. How's that for unforseen variables?


:eek: (to be continued...) :eek:

Um, it's not philosopers that say black holes are a way to travel to the future. That's science fiction writers.
See, black holes warp time around them, which is really interesting and cool.
And science fiction writers to "warp time? Cool! That could be a plausable scientific reason for my time travellers new warp engine".

We don't know a black hole isn't a hole to another dimension, any more than we know that your toaster isn't actually your mother. It could be true. It's just extremely unlikely, and there is no evidence to show it's true.

We know that things are lost forever in black holes, because of the increased gravity of the black holes, and gravity is caused by mass. And if the things absorbed by the black hole are going somewhere else, then why does their mass add to the gravity of the black hole?

Also, there is theoretical hawking radiation that is emitted from black holes. That, until recently, was only a theory, as it has never been observed. Recently some scientists in NY created a superhot fireball, that had similar properties to a black hole, and observed hawking radiation emitted, exactly as predicted.

So...the way black holes work is...matter goes in, and stays. Any excess energy is bled off as hawking radiation. No portals to other dimensions or times. Dissapointing, I know. But, still, it's exciting to imagine, and I'm going to keep reading science fiction, and dreaming about "what could be on the other side of a black hole". Even if I know it's just a story.
the prbability that u guys are f*$#ing losers =1

isnt it a probability of one that i believe i have read the question

no, you may spontaniously develop skitzophrenea and believe not only that you did not read the question but that aliens implanted the thoughts into your head, similarly your brain could explode

im sure ppl are beggining to see where im going with this :D

So is there a probability of 1 that nothing has a probability of 1? :confused:

Oh god my brain

Dude your brain just imploded. Don't think like that! :D

Matter cannot escape a black hole once it crosses the event horizon, it is lost forever in the hole at the singularity. That would likely be 1, although no black holes have yet been decisively confirmed.

Wrong. Hawkins radiation theory maybe true, and what about the white hole?

If antimatter collides with matter the possibility for annihilation=probablity of 1

the point is, your example is 'write something which contains all letters of the alphabet but you are not allowed to use any letters other than z'

this is like saying write z but you are not allowed to write z... this is a condition. You are prefixing the probability at 0 (if you want to see it in terms of probability) But this does not put the probability of me writing the letter z at 0 without the condition. With the condition there is no probability, the event is simply false. If you control variables and set probability at zero then probability does not exist.

and as i said before a probability can only be 1 or 0 if a condition is set which gives it that probability...Events such as the sun setting cannot be controlled with such conditions....

Dont get me wrong, i see your point but yet again i dont deem it to have anything to do with probability

Of course it has to do with probability. It's a tautology. It will always be true.
Yes, I agree with you entirely that a probability can only be 1 or 0 if a condition is set which gives it that probability. That's just what I'm saying.
You need to set up conditions that make the task impossible (or impossible to fail). Otherwise, nothing is 100% certain.
And, if we're not allowed to set up those conditions, then this whole discussion is meaningless.

Or did you want more confusing examples that come to the same end result?
Probability that an unstable atom will change form? 100%. But, again, that has the (implied) condition that an unstable atom cannot remain in its unstable form indefinately. It's just as bad as my Hamlet example.

I cannot comment on the atom example... But its a much more suibtable example...

However the theory goes so far as to say that even such an event does not have a probability of 1 since there is supposedly a very minute probability that time will reverse itself, or some such bullshit... i dont know im tired so ill give you that one :D

But i stick by my guns on the hamlet example, its like giving someone a banana and telling them to eat the apple... probability = 0

its down to definition in this case i suppose.


PS is there any possible condition where if an atom becomes unstable that it will not change form?

the prbability that u guys are f*$#ing losers =1
What, exactly, was this in aid of?
You're not interested in the topic? Plenty more threads for you to read instead.
You see something wrong with intellectual thought? I pity you.
You thought you were funny? Maybe you were. I'm somewhat amused, actually, but not at your joke.

And while you're insulting people, at least make an attempt to do it on their level or above. At least spell "probability" correctly. I'm dyslexic and I can manage.

to be fair i have spelled probability wrong countless times :D Grhahmmer and speling where never my strong pointz

Um, it's not philosopers that say black holes are a way to travel to the future. That's science fiction writers.
See, black holes warp time around them, which is really interesting and cool.
And science fiction writers to "warp time? Cool! That could be a plausable scientific reason for my time travellers new warp engine".

We don't know a black hole isn't a hole to another dimension, any more than we know that your toaster isn't actually your mother. It could be true. It's just extremely unlikely, and there is no evidence to show it's true.

We know that things are lost forever in black holes, because of the increased gravity of the black holes, and gravity is caused by mass. And if the things absorbed by the black hole are going somewhere else, then why does their mass add to the gravity of the black hole?

Wrong. IT is suspected that a black whole the size of the sun can and probably would be destroyed in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years through annihilation.

On the it travels to the future, you are wrong. The density really screws up time (since time and space are bent) making time in the black hole go slower, like traveling at the speed of light.

Also, there is theoretical hawking radiation that is emitted from black holes. That, until recently, was only a theory, as it has never been observed. Recently some scientists in NY created a superhot fireball, that had similar properties to a black hole, and observed hawking radiation emitted, exactly as predicted.

So...the way black holes work is...matter goes in, and stays. Any excess energy is bled off as hawking radiation. No portals to other dimensions or times. Dissapointing, I know. But, still, it's exciting to imagine, and I'm going to keep reading science fiction, and dreaming about "what could be on the other side of a black hole". Even if I know it's just a story.

Now time to prove that a prob of 1 is possible.

There is a probabilty of 1 that I have some (not alot and I probably am wrong about a lot of stuff) info about what I am doing while attacking this guys posts.

Also it is a probablility of 0 for me to be female since I am a male.

Now time to prove that a prob of 1 is possible.

There is a probabilty of 1 that I have some (not alot and I probably am wrong about a lot of stuff) info about what I am doing while attacking this guys posts.

Also it is a probablility of 0 for me to be female since I am a male.

once again, if you say the probability of an event which is allready true is 1 then you have missed the point

to be fair i have spelled probability wrong countless times :D Grhahmmer and speling where never my strong pointz

You shouldve done it better, for example your second sentence should read as

Speling grhahmmer never strunp where and pointiz mi

once again, if you say the probability of an event which is allready true is 1 then you have missed the point

Fine. How about

It is a possiblility of 1 that I would either live or die tomorrow if and only if I survive today.

True, no other option, didnt already happen and I will probably live or die tommorrow.

the probability that i will use incorrect grammer in the future = 1...

that is if you ignore the fact that i may 1) never write again, 2) spontaniously combust 3) learn grammer or 4) lose both hands, hearing and eyesight in a freak tiddleywinks accident

aha, but in that case you could say, the probability that something will happen tomorow is 1.... this is not an event, it is not effected by probability...

I think this can be applied to the atom example aswell, you can predict that the atom will change but you cannot predict with a probability of one how it will change..

i think i may be contradicting myself, but its 2:30 am and i dont care anymore :D

I cannot comment on the atom example... But its a much more suibtable example...

However the theory goes so far as to say that even such an event does not have a probability of 1 since there is supposedly a very minute probability that time will reverse itself, or some such bullshit... i dont know im tired so ill give you that one :D

But i stick by my guns on the hamlet example, its like giving someone a banana and telling them to eat the apple... probability = 0

its down to definition in this case i suppose.


PS is there any possible condition where if an atom becomes unstable that it will not change form?
I'm really going to make a fool of myself with my atom example, as I'm really terrible at chemistry. Absolutely terrible, I'm talking 1 mark out of 50 in my high school chemistry exam (it was a compusory subject!). So I'd rather that we don't stick with that as the conversation baseline example (but I'm happy to until someone finds a better example to use).

Yes, time might reverse itself. Perfect. I've got no way of knowing that time works in a line, anyway (only that my memory works in a line). Which is why with the Hamlet example, I chose to mention something that will happen in the future. It's like saying "this stable atom will NOT change form". Which would be incorrect in many cases. I can't say with 100% certainty that anything *will* happen. Just things that *won't*.

There are conditions where an unstable atom does not change its forms. I believe. Like if there are no other suitable atoms to interact with. Get one unstable atom all on its lonesome, or with only more-stable-than-it-is-unstable atoms, and it won't change. Also I believe there is a certain amount of time it takes before an unstable atom changes.

Perhaps a better example would be radioactive decay, where the isotope will change over time, I don't know of any examples where it would *not* decay (can you re-charge them?). Assuming re-charging is impossible, due to my lack of knowledge on the topic, we could say "it's impossible for an isotope to create more charge" - but that's the same as hamlet, saying "if this is impossible, then it's impossible"

Oh, and giving someone a banana and telling them to eat the apple. How do you know they don't have an apple with them already? I'm just being contrary :)

I still believe (and think we agree) that it's impossible to have p=1 without conditions that lead to p=1. And any of those conditions will have to be so certain that it will lead to a tautology (if it doesn't, we don't have p=1). So we'll *always* be giving them the banana and telling them to eat the apple.

hmm.
Would you be happier with an example like "I have a 100% probability of following the laws of physics"?

That seems to be similar to the "my name is roger" argument, as it's already happened and been "locked in". I suppose it's conceivable, though impossible, that the laws of physics could change and reality shift, so that I myself can break them.

Conceivable, but impossible, due to the definitions of a "law of physics"

I would just like to add, even if we dont consider all variables it does not mean they are not there, while we may calculate a probability there will be an 'actual' probability....

In the atom example you have given conditions where the atom may not change state, however i must now admit that for this to be possible it must be the condition that one of these situations are allready true for the atom not to change...

I think now its more a case of redefining probability than arguing about its application

Probability in the sense of predicting events without knowledge of all variables is the probability found in statistics....

Probability when talking about real events, which happen naturally without conditions may not even exist... however this is the probability i have been talking about.... If there are a set number of variables effecting an event, then there is no probability, there is a certainty right? however taking into account quantum physics and considering the random factor... if an event is affected by any one random factor then a probability for the outcome cannot exist? it simply may or may not happen... while one outcome may be more probable than another i believe that in this case it is impossible to come up with a fraction of 1 as the absolute probabilty..

at least untill we further understand quantum physics

Wrong. IT is suspected that a black whole the size of the sun can and probably would be destroyed in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years through annihilation.
What exactly was I wrong about? That nothing escapes?
No, I know *something* escapes. It's called Hawking radiation, and I mentioned it in my post. The reason the black hole is destroyed is because it degrades, becoming hawking radiation.
Black holes need to absorb more mass than they emit via radiation, otherwise they shrink, and continue shrinking to nothing.


On the it travels to the future, you are wrong. The density really screws up time (since time and space are bent) making time in the black hole go slower, like traveling at the speed of light.
OK, I'll accept that. With warped time, it's possible to move through the warped time to move yourself further into the future. But you can only speed up or slow down how time is passing (relatively) for yourself. By that argument time travel is always possible, and already happening. I'm moving forward in time at the rate of 1 second per second.
In a black hole I could do that faster, sure.


Now time to prove that a prob of 1 is possible.

There is a probabilty of 1 that I have some (not alot and I probably am wrong about a lot of stuff) info about what I am doing while attacking this guys posts.

Also it is a probablility of 0 for me to be female since I am a male.
How is this a probability of 1? You have some info? I assume you mean correct info? OK. I'll agree that what you said is probably correct, I'm not arguing that. But how do you know it's correct, any of it, with 100% certainty? How do you know that the whole concept of black hole physics isn't completely wrong? It may be.

lol, well as for following the laws of physics while first of all that is set on the condition that you will live to do anything, on the condition that you will not change any opinions, that the earth will not explode, that you wont be hit by freak cosmic rays and become a scientologist due to ruptured cereberal pathways

ok but you see what i mean... while you intend to follow the laws of physics physics itself states that the probability that you will make good on that statement is not 1 (in this case)

What, exactly, was this in aid of?
You're not interested in the topic? Plenty more threads for you to read instead.
You see something wrong with intellectual thought? I pity you.
You thought you were funny? Maybe you were. I'm somewhat amused, actually, but not at your joke.

And while you're insulting people, at least make an attempt to do it on their level or above. At least spell "probability" correctly. I'm dyslexic and I can manage.
im sorry but when did science fiction have anything to do with knowledge???????? you pity me? i pity you for the lack of morals you obtain what makes you on a higher level than me ??????? :confused:

probability that it is 2:52am and that i have college tomorow = 1

so im going to have to retire from this one, but its been fun.. adios!

lol, well as for following the laws of physics while first of all that is set on the condition that you will live to do anything, on the condition that you will not change any opinions, that the earth will not explode, that you wont be hit by freak cosmic rays and become a scientologist due to ruptured cereberal pathways

ok but you see what i mean... while you intend to follow the laws of physics physics itself states that the probability that you will make good on that statement is not 1 (in this case)
When I said "the laws of physics" I meant things like "gravity will effect the atoms in my body, acting as an attracting force". Not "I won't fly tomorrow, because humans can't do that"
If the earth explodes, I'll get blasted to pieces, according to the laws of physics and explosive forces. Or not get blasted, due to my super-shield, again, following the laws of physics.
It has nothing to do with what I intend.

Since we cannot measure every single stimulus in the universe at any given time, we cannot predict an exact number for any inference. Of course, by this standard all probabilities are inherently inaccurate, which is why they are all based on assumptions. We can assume the sun will rise tomorrow because a great deal of relevant information says that there is no reason why it shouldn't, and despite the fact that there is still some rediculously small chance that it won't as dictated by some odd movement of matter out in the corner of the universe, it's small enough to be irrelevant in our every day lives. You can never have an accurate probability, so of course you can never have one that is definitely true or definitely false.

Murphey's Law:
Everything that can happen, will happen.

Earths_orbit, sorry i misunderstood,

Dewat, we are not talking about predicting anything... this is about theory not practicalities.

If a probability exists in the physical world then it just is, im not saying we can use it but based on all the variables etc something would potentially have a probability (ignoring the points i made about quantum physics in which case probability might aswell not exist in the first place)

So ignoring the question of whether probability actually exists or not in the first place.... yes an accurate probability can exist, just it is very unlikely that we would ever arrive at an accurate probability... This ridiculously small chance exists, what is the chance? we will probably never know but its there... this is what we have been discussing for the last 6 or whatever pages

The universe exists.
Or at least, something exists.
How do I know? Because something has to exist to give rise to this conversation. Or the imagination of this conversation. There has to be a physical, tangible, object somewhere along the line for this to exist.

im sorry but when did science fiction have anything to do with knowledge???????? you pity me? i pity you for the lack of morals you obtain what makes you on a higher level than me ??????? :confused:
Science fiction, or more precisely hypotetical situations, has a *lot* to do with knowledge. Ever heard of the scientific theory? The first step is coming up with an idea that seems to be true.

Ever tried to discuss something? Notice how you *always* simplify the concepts (oh, does that count as p=1? I suppose not since humans are built to simplify concepts, it's impossible for us not to). So, often it's useful to consider fictional, simplified examples.

Also, if you'll notice, I was arguing *against* the concept of black holes being portals to other dimensions, and claiming that those ideas come from science fiction, and as such should be disregarded for this discussion.

I claimed I pity you, if you have a problem with intellectual discussion. I don't actually think you have a problem with it, or you wouldn't be responding in this way to me. That's still beside the point.

You pity me for my lack of morals? Did we discuss my morals? Where did that come into this topic? What makes you suspect I have a lack of morals?

What makes me on a higher level than you? Nothing. What makes my discussion intellectually on a higher level than your original, crude insult? Do I even need to explain?
There is nothing inherently, "magically", better about having an intellectual discussion than giving insults to people. There is, however, the fact that an intellectual discussion is, intellectually, higher than insults. Unless they are really intellectual insults which, unfortunately, yours wasn't.

the problem of course with highly intellectual insults is that they tend to go over people's heads... which can or cant be a good thing

Earths_orbit, sorry i misunderstood,

<snip>

(ignoring the points i made about quantum physics in which case probability might aswell not exist in the first place)

So ignoring the question of whether probability actually exists or not in the first place.... yes an accurate probability can exist, just it is very unlikely that we would ever arrive at an accurate probability... This ridiculously small chance exists, what is the chance? we will probably never know but its there... this is what we have been discussing for the last 6 or whatever pages

Einstein is reputed to have once said, "Everything that can happen, will happen."

As far as whether a physical event can have probability 1, we can't decide on the true answer of that question. In order to do so, we would have to know everything that can be known (and know that we do know everything that can be known) about the universe. I doubt, on philosophical grounds, this is possible. So yes, a physical event might have probability 1, but we could never be sure.

As far as your comments on quantum theory: In the first place, we don't have a good theory that can combine what we know about quantum mechanics with what we know about general relativity (and therefore gravity). So we can't say with certainty whether it's possible for a particle to spontaneously tunnel out of the Schwarzchild radius of the black hole. In fact, we can't ever say that, unless we are capable of realizing that we understand everything about the universe.

Earths_orbit, sorry i misunderstood,
Hey, that's why we're discussing things, and not just posting our arguments then leaving :)


If a probability exists in the physical world then it just is, im not saying we can use it but based on all the variables etc something would potentially have a probability (ignoring the points i made about quantum physics in which case probability might aswell not exist in the first place)

So ignoring the question of whether probability actually exists or not in the first place.... yes an accurate probability can exist, just it is very unlikely that we would ever arrive at an accurate probability... This ridiculously small chance exists, what is the chance? we will probably never know but its there... this is what we have been discussing for the last 6 or whatever pages
So, you're saying that, if we can take every possible variable into account, would we have a complete p=1 or p=0 for some events, or is there a kind of universal "randomness" that can't be taken into account, due to quantum or some such?

In that case, can't I counter with "what if we took that quantum randomness into account"?

Also, I can counter with "quantum physics only applies on a really small scale. Look at the larger picture, where it doesn't apply, take every variable into account, and you have completel probability knowledge, for any action large enought hat quantum physics can't effect"

ok i understand, but can you see my distinction between us 'being able to predict probabilities of physical events' and 'knowing wether physical events have probabilites whether we are able to predict them or not'

One of these cases is extremely unlikely to ever occur, the other is less unlikely

Earths_orbit, sorry i misunderstood,

Dewat, we are not talking about predicting anything... this is about theory not practicalities.

If a probability exists in the physical world then it just is, im not saying we can use it but based on all the variables etc something would potentially have a probability (ignoring the points i made about quantum physics in which case probability might aswell not exist in the first place)

So ignoring the question of whether probability actually exists or not in the first place.... yes an accurate probability can exist, just it is very unlikely that we would ever arrive at an accurate probability... This ridiculously small chance exists, what is the chance? we will probably never know but its there... this is what we have been discussing for the last 6 or whatever pages
Well, a quick statement then: if you're saying that it is definite a probability can exist then you are defying the very rules that you might try to use to prove that a probability of 1 or 0 might exist. By this I mean that the question of whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow suddenly becomes irrelevant because we don't include the very physical basis on which we can define that the sun does rise at all. If you're only talking absolute theory, then all you'd need to do for a probability to be possible is to state it. P=1, therefore it is true. But your problems seem to be coming from how such logic can be placed into a practical world by the examples you give, such as the chance of the sun rising, therefore this would seem to deal with practicalities, and as such what I said before stands. Unless I'm misunderstanding you somehow?

-edit-

Just thought I'd add, as for your statement on if we could measure all variables...how possible is that? How do we know that that number of variables doesn't span to infinity? I'm not so sure it's possible to measure all the data required to determine a single probability in definite, and if it is based on an infinite number of influences then I think that would further say that it can never be 0 or 1, under the basis that there would always be the infinitesimal chance that the opposite will occur.

Okay. I'm going to put this to rest. Probability is the area under a distribution curve. Something can have a probability of 0 and still be possible, likewise something can have a probability of 1 and not happen. If you want to know how, ask and I'll endeavour to explain it to you. :sniper:

when i say practicalities, i mean using knowledge of variables and probability to predict events... im simply stating that while we may not practically 'use' this knowledge, the case may be that these probabilities exist in the physical world and determine (or not) events

eh that made little sense, what i mean is, we may not be able to arrive at the probability that the sun will not rise tomorow, but there may be a specific probability based on variables at any one time that the sun will infact not rise, the probability may be 0.00000- billion zeros -00000001 at a point in time... We will never know this probability but we can assume that there is one

sorry you misunderstood me you said earlier "their level or above" now correct me if im wrong but that phrase is very cynical.i could understand if you meant grammar level or english level but you didnt. I would think for someone to be taking part in a intellectual argument of this callibre and to be denying someone else of their grammar skills they would infact word their sentences correctly so one could understand the argument put forward



p.s forgive me if my spelling's wrong im only 13

are distribution curves not estimates based on mathematical trials or something? Im thinking of the normal distribution, im not really into stats to be honest..

So then infact the area under the curve is not accurate? Furthermore this is only concept, if you make an accurate curve taking into account all billions of variables that may effect the outcome of an event then you have an accurate probability.. otherwise i deem it to simply be a mathematical probability and not a real one.

For example, a distribution table will say that you have an equal chance of picking any one card from a deck of cards when everyone knows this is simply not true based on the arrangement of the cards (knowing you are less likely to take the bottom or top cards)

ehhh, ayway my point is that physical probabilities and conceptual probabilites are not the same thing, and probably never will be

to the contrary, there is a probability that the sun won't rise...it's 0. Does that mean it can't happen? Nope. If you're confuse I can explain after I go and take a shower. :D

How about droping something in the confines of earths gravity it will hit the ground or something conected to it?
anyone ever heard of the moon?

God how I love learning philosophy from NS.

sorry you misunderstood me you said earlier "their level or above" now correct me if im wrong but that phrase is very cynical.i could understand if you meant grammar level or english level but you didnt. I would think for someone to be taking part in a intellectual argument of this callibre and to be denying someone else of their grammar skills they would infact word their sentences correctly so one could understand the argument put forward
Two things.
Firstly, an apology. When I said "their level or above", as this was an intellectual discussion, I was referring to the intellectual level (and although you may have an equal or higher intellectual level, you weren't using it fully in the insult). I want to apologise, it was worded ambiguously and I did not intend to imply that your worth as a person was any less. Only that the intellectual worth of your post was lacking.

I was denying you your spelling skills, not grammar. Not because there is anything wrong with misspellings, we all make mistakes. It just looks bad to make an easily corrected mistake while insulting someone.
As for me not explaining properly (which is what you mean when you say I should have taken more care with my grammar?) I could have clarified more (as I hopefully have done now) if you misunderstood. I needed to choose how much to write. I didn't specify as much as I perhaps should have. I don't think there was anything particularly wrong with the wording of my sentence, other than the fact that you misunderstood me, which is more a problem with not knowing the other participants in the discussion, so I couldn't correctly judge how you would interpret my meaning.
I apologise for my misjudgement in that, no insult to your worth as a person was intended.

p.s forgive me if my spelling's wrong im only 13
And that genuinely does impress me (not that my opinion is so important in the long run), as beside from that one post, you've shown a very high intellectual level. I had assumed you to be much older.

to the contrary, there is a probability that the sun won't rise...it's 0. Does that mean it can't happen? Nope. If you're confuse I can explain after I go and take a shower. :D
Please do, I'm interested.
I request that you keep the maths as simple as possible, as I have mathematical difficulties.

...god how I hated statistics

i am also tired, im going round in circles here... i wasnt saying a 0. 0 etc 01 probability could be taken as 0 at all..

all i was saying is that an exact probability may exist whether we can accurately estimate it or not.

Im seperating actual mathematical predictions and physical probabilities, which i see as independant of eachother since (as you say) we could never accurately predict events with billions of variables

edit> ah i see you re read my post :D

all i was saying is that an exact probability may exist whether we can accurately estimate it or not.


Exact probabilities sure do exist.

The probability that I'm going to be hit by a nuclear bomb?
Well...if we have God, or whoever this scientist is who is calculating the Real World Probability of me getting hit with a nuclear bomb...

they could check, and see that there are no nuclear bombs in australia or heading towards australia.
They could also, conceivably, check that timetravel isn't possible, nor is teleportation. They could check that there are no nuclear bombs with super-fast-rockets that can get to australia fast enough.

And tell me that I have a p=0 of being hit by a nuclear bomb today.

At least, I really hope they tell me I have a p=0 chance of being hit.
This is assuming that all the variables can be taken into account.

I don't actually know that I have a p=0 of that particular example, but try enough cases like that, and you'll find one.

when i say practicalities, i mean using knowledge of variables and probability to predict events... im simply stating that while we may not practically 'use' this knowledge, the case may be that these probabilities exist in the physical world and determine (or not) events

eh that made little sense, what i mean is, we may not be able to arrive at the probability that the sun will not rise tomorow, but there may be a specific probability based on variables at any one time that the sun will infact not rise, the probability may be 0.00000- billion zeros -00000001 at a point in time... We will never know this probability but we can assume that there is one
Are you sure about that? What if there are infinite variables which would be needed to come to such a probability? If that's so then it would be mathmatically illogical to make such an assumption. It would seem to be very possible that no statistic can simply be gauranteed like that, meaning nothing could ever have such a definite chance of occuring.

i think its agreed that there cannot be an infinate number of variables at any one point in time...

Hypothetically if you took a snapshot of the universe you could work out all probabilites of every possible position and speed of every object in the universe which would occur directly afterwards....

this is hypothetical of course.

I was told there is a limited amount of matter and energy in the universe, limited or not there must be a 'set' amount at any one time... Is there a limit on possiblity? (not probability)\

Seriously im properly doing my head in now im gonna go boil it then try to sleep.

Okay now Probability can be a graph of infiinite possibilities. Because probablility is a number between 0 and 1 inclusive, the area between that graph and the x-axis is 1. The area under a reigon from one x value to another is the probability that something will take on one of the values in between two set numbers. Now everyone knows that a line has length, but no other dimension, so we say its width is 0 (trust me, it is). So the area under a specific point is a line which, when you multiply length times width, you get a probability of 0. Could that value occur? Sure, but that doesn't change the probability being 0. It's somewhat difficult to understand at first, but you just need to think about it. :mp5:

Exact probabilities sure do exist.

The probability that I'm going to be hit by a nuclear bomb?
Well...if we have God, or whoever this scientist is who is calculating the Real World Probability of me getting hit with a nuclear bomb...

they could check, and see that there are no nuclear bombs in australia or heading towards australia.
They could also, conceivably, check that timetravel isn't possible, nor is teleportation. They could check that there are no nuclear bombs with super-fast-rockets that can get to australia fast enough.

And tell me that I have a p=0 of being hit by a nuclear bomb today.

At least, I really hope they tell me I have a p=0 chance of being hit.
This is assuming that all the variables can be taken into account.

I don't actually know that I have a p=0 of that particular example, but try enough cases like that, and you'll find one.
I agree with your statement, I'm just pointing out that you could never prove that p=0, it just wouldn't make any sense. However, in the real world there is enough relevant information that you can make the assumption that no nuclear bombs will hit you and you'll probably be right. I'm just saying that that is still an assumption and therefore comes with a degree of acuracy - what if a madman was building one right underneath your house and he was never discovered? Extremely unlikely, and that particular example has many follacies I don't want to get in to, but still physically possible. You can find a catch like that for any probability, so you could never really definitely say it is exact.

My question is this, can an event which is not given as a condition, or is not allready true, ever have a probability of 1?

There may be examples where probability can = 1 but i have not come up with any yet...

For example, the probability of the sun rising tomorow.... it has a very high probability indeed, infact even if the earths orbit and roation changes within a certain limit the sun will still rise (relative to areas that is rises allready)

Isn't the sun coming up in the morning tautologically true?

The morning is defined by the sun coming up, so if it doesn't then it isn't morning yet. If the sun doesn't come up until the middle of the afternoon, then that's morning. Right? Just like the probablity that any given boy will be a boy is 1.

All speculation aside, everything has a probability, one is not mathematically allowed to say that a probability is = to 1 or 0 really because of the fact that if you know something, then it no longer has a probability for you because it is certain; probability is like Einstein's theory of relativity, it changes depending upon the situation. The only reason we have it is to predict future events based on past events, ergo even with a probability of 1 it may not happen as it has not happened and with a probability of 0 is may happen as it still might happen.

i think its agreed that there cannot be an infinate number of variables at any one point in time...

Hypothetically if you took a snapshot of the universe you could work out all probabilites of every possible position and speed of every object in the universe which would occur directly afterwards....

this is hypothetical of course.

I was told there is a limited amount of matter and energy in the universe, limited or not there must be a 'set' amount at any one time... Is there a limit on possiblity? (not probability)\

Seriously im properly doing my head in now im gonna go boil it then try to sleep.
OK. That's the question I'm really getting into, is there definitely a limit on the universe, or outside of it? Can we actually prove that? I don't know, but if there is some unfallible logic behind please tell me (not being sarcastic, that might not translate well), I wouldn't be suprised if I'm grossly misinformed.

I agree with your statement, I'm just pointing out that you could never prove that p=0, it just wouldn't make any sense. However, in the real world there is enough relevant information that you can make the assumption that no nuclear bombs will hit you and you'll probably be right. I'm just saying that that is still an assumption and therefore comes with a degree of acuracy - what if a madman was building one right underneath your house and he was never discovered? Extremely unlikely, and that particular example has many follacies I don't want to get in to, but still physically possible. You can find a catch like that for any probability, so you could never really definitely say it is exact.

I thought that we were just talking about whether it's possible to have p=1, in a situation where we know all the variables (or all the variables that can be known). In which case, whoever checks for the bombs would know about the madman.

another example that might make more sense.
What is the probability that a human athlete, using only normal running equiptment and no "special effects" like time speeding up and slowing down, could run 20 meters in under an hour?
pretty high. Not p=1, he might be a cripple. But pretty high.
What about running 40 meters? 100? 500? 1000? 10,000?
we reach a point where the probability starts dropping off drastically. It quickly approaches zero.
We also have an upper limit that will never be crossed, above which p=0.
A human has a p=0 chance of running ten million zillion trillion miles in under an hour.

notice that I'm saying "running" and not "moving". So saying "but an alien could teleport him" doesn't count.

actually it has been proven conclusively through experiments that the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating in its expansion. (positive acceleration that is).

I thought that we were just talking about whether it's possible to have p=1, in a situation where we know all the variables (or all the variables that can be known). In which case, whoever checks for the bombs would know about the madman.

another example that might make more sense.
What is the probability that a human athlete, using only normal running equiptment and no "special effects" like time speeding up and slowing down, could run 20 meters in under an hour?
pretty high. Not p=1, he might be a cripple. But pretty high.
What about running 40 meters? 100? 500? 1000? 10,000?
we reach a point where the probability starts dropping off drastically. It quickly approaches zero.
We also have an upper limit that will never be crossed, above which p=0.
A human has a p=0 chance of running ten million zillion trillion miles in under an hour.

notice that I'm saying "running" and not "moving". So saying "but an alien could teleport him" doesn't count.

All use of units aside, it doesn't matter what probability you assign, it's all relative ergo the question is meaningless and so the answer is unnecessary. The only question that can be definitively answered is one that has no frame of reference, in other words a probability of either one or zero is indeed possible.

All use of units aside, it doesn't matter what probability you assign, it's all relative ergo the question is meaningless and so the answer is unnecessary. The only question that can be definitively answered is one that has no frame of reference, in other words a probability of either one or zero is indeed possible.
Well, the units move the probability curve up or down the graph, but the curve still keeps its own shape, and in this case the shape has an upper limit (which may change when you change units, but will still be limited).
Meaning there is an area that has p=0

First, let me say that probability is extraordinarily tricky. Events at a regular human level of observation (such as car crashes, dice rolls, coin tosses, etc.) incorporate billions of factors from the subatomic level on up. Many of these factors cancel out, and for everyday encounters it suffices that a person has a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a "5" on a die, or a 50-50 chance of getting heads on a coin. However, if you really want to get into a semantical argument, it can be proven that all events are both entirely certain, and also have a definite probability less than 1.

An Austrian physicist, Erwin Schrodinger, described a situation in which a cat is placed in a closed box with a bottle of poison, a Geiger counter, and a small mass of radioactive material. In a given period of time, a 50/50 chance exists that the radioactive material will decay enough to trigger a system that breaks the bottle of poison, thereby poisoning the cat. However, an outside observer, unable to measure any data from the situation inside the box, will be unable to tell whether the cat is alive or dead until the box is opened. The cat is in what is termed a "quantum superimposed state" from the point of view of the observer: it is both alive and dead until it is observed in one or the other conditions. At the point where the observer looks into the box, (at least) two separate universes (or timelines, realities, what-have-you) are created, one in which the cat dies, another in which it lives.

In short, until you as an observer directly view/hear/see/cogitate on the results of a situation, the probability exists as a fraction to the here-and-now you, and as a certainty in all cases combined for the total set of all iterations of counterpart-you's in other universes. When you observe the result, the probability becomes P=1 for whichever outcome you observe, and P=0 for all others (those outcomes observed by other you's in other universes).

I thought that we were just talking about whether it's possible to have p=1, in a situation where we know all the variables (or all the variables that can be known). In which case, whoever checks for the bombs would know about the madman.

another example that might make more sense.
What is the probability that a human athlete, using only normal running equiptment and no "special effects" like time speeding up and slowing down, could run 20 meters in under an hour?
pretty high. Not p=1, he might be a cripple. But pretty high.
What about running 40 meters? 100? 500? 1000? 10,000?
we reach a point where the probability starts dropping off drastically. It quickly approaches zero.
We also have an upper limit that will never be crossed, above which p=0.
A human has a p=0 chance of running ten million zillion trillion miles in under an hour.

notice that I'm saying "running" and not "moving". So saying "but an alien could teleport him" doesn't count.
I cecede to you on this point, albeit I've been speaking in the terms of something that can physically happen to start with and our ability to predict and as such make an exact probability of such a thing occuring.

How about droping something in the confines of earths gravity it will hit the ground or something conected to it?

You can ask your physics teacher if you have one, but if u dont then they will tell u the odds of a ball being dropped cannot be proven that it will hit the grounf.

The probability of anything happening at any given time and place is either 1 or 0. We just don't know which one untill it has been observed.

Well, the units move the probability curve up or down the graph, but the curve still keeps its own shape, and in this case the shape has an upper limit (which may change when you change units, but will still be limited).
Meaning there is an area that has p=0


I meant it was funny how you used million zillion trillion.

First, let me say that probability is extraordinarily tricky. Events at a regular human level of observation (such as car crashes, dice rolls, coin tosses, etc.) incorporate billions of factors from the subatomic level on up. Many of these factors cancel out, and for everyday encounters it suffices that a person has a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a "5" on a die, or a 50-50 chance of getting heads on a coin. However, if you really want to get into a semantical argument, it can be proven that all events are both entirely certain, and also have a definite probability less than 1.

An Austrian physicist, Erwin Schrodinger, described a situation in which a cat is placed in a closed box with a bottle of poison, a Geiger counter, and a small mass of radioactive material. In a given period of time, a 50/50 chance exists that the radioactive material will decay enough to trigger a system that breaks the bottle of poison, thereby poisoning the cat. However, an outside observer, unable to measure any data from the situation inside the box, will be unable to tell whether the cat is alive or dead until the box is opened. The cat is in what is termed a "quantum superimposed state" from the point of view of the observer: it is both alive and dead until it is observed in one or the other conditions. At the point where the observer looks into the box, (at least) two separate universes (or timelines, realities, what-have-you) are created, one in which the cat dies, another in which it lives.

In short, until you as an observer directly view/hear/see/cogitate on the results of a situation, the probability exists as a fraction to the here-and-now you, and as a certainty in all cases combined for the total set of all iterations of counterpart-you's in other universes. When you observe the result, the probability becomes P=1 for whichever outcome you observe, and P=0 for all others (those outcomes observed by other you's in other universes).


One cannot truthfully make that statement without relying on sting theory which has not been proven; in fact right now they are beginning to find flaws with it.

The probability of anything happening at any given time and place is either 1 or 0. We just don't know which one untill it has been observed.

Probability by definition is used to predict unknown event, once it is known it no longer has a probability of happening.

Probability by definition is used to predict unknown event, once it is known it no longer has a probability of happening.

True, but tht begs the question "is there such a thing as a truely unknown event".

In a hypothetical sitution you flip a coin. It lands heads. I, being far away and communicating over the internet, cannot see your coin.
I have to make a guess as to the results of the flip.

Now, I decide to guess tails. There is a 1/2 probabibility that I am right as there are only two possibilities.

However, is there really? I am certainly wrong. No matter what the probability of one face landing up is, there is no real possibility that the coin flip will result in tails once it is definetly resulted in heads.

Probability is purely a matter of perception. As one gains knowledge probability converges to zero or 1.

There is a 1/6 chance that ane side of a 6-sided die will land up. But that probability changes as I measure the roll on the most minute level. The imperfection is the die, the force of the roll, and the texture of the surface. As I understand these I can more percisly measure the probability.

Probability can be likened to a taylor polynominal P-sub n (x) where in represents knowledge of the minute details which influance an event.

A taylor polonominal is going to be an impercise measurement of a curve, being most impercise at P-sub 0 (x). It gains percision as one adds to n.

If one can reduce the probability to such a polynomial then

the limit of as N-> infinity of P-sub n (x) = 0 or 1.

In order for n to = infinity one must be omnipotent. Therefore the probability curve is asymptotic for all persons who are not God.

It does approach infinitly close to 1 or zero, which is almost the same thing.

Which says that I somehow agree with you, in a round-about way.

But, if someone who is not omnipotent reaches an incorrect conclusion because its probability aproaches infinitly close to 1, that doesn't make the conclusion correct.

Probability is useful, but it is a logical concept that doesn't necessarilary resemble reality.

again were talking about operational probability here... the question i have raised is about 'actual' probability regardless of whether it can be known or not...

If you flip a coin, then there are two ways of looking at it.

1) Based on all variables at the moment of flipping the coin, there is only one side the coin can land on

2) Quantum physics.... Basicly we say that due to a certain random factor the coin my land on either side, in this case there can be a physical probability it will land on heads or tails


Im not talking about mathematics since no mathematical model can realisticly predict anything accurately, distribution tables are innacurate but usefull... im not talking about practicalities im talking about realities.

I have made this distinction about 16 times in this thread lol

Ah, in that case the answer is...no.

as for a taylor expansion, I agree with you Karas, that makes sense. But that further supports my relativity idea don't you agree?

as for a taylor expansion, I agree with you Karas, that makes sense. But that further supports my relativity idea don't you agree?

Yes. It does. I said as much.

However, as the poster of this thread pointed out, that isn't what the thread is really about.

The original poster was concerned with realivitive vs absolute probability.
Say I have a magic remote controll with the ability to rewind time. If a watch someone roll a side and get a 1 and then repeatedly rewind time so that I can watch that person roll an infinite number of times at the exact same x,y,z,t coridinates with the exact same conditions, will the die land on anything but 1 in any of those infinite itterations?

This assumes that I exists outside of normal spacetime so that I continue to experience linearly despite the rewind and the accumilated changes in my brain structure that accompany my increasing experience do not alter the quantum structure of the roller's universe.

If the universe is deterministic then the die will never land on anything but 1.
If there is a random componet to the universe then it will eventually land on all possible faces and even land perfectly on a corner a few times.

In a deterministic universe a percieved probability does not = real possibility. Real possibility is always 0 or 1 but we don't know wuntill we experience. Probability is simply a guess about real probability.

In a non-deterministic world, there is no such thing real possibility. Anything is possible. he laws of the universe can suddenly change for no reason. History can spontainously re-write itself. It usually doesn't, but it is possible.

As identical alterations aproach infinity the probability of any outcome remains less than 1 and every possible outcome will occur at leat once.

Personally, I perfer the deterministic world view.
I prefer it because I know that if the universe is non-deterministic then somewhere and somewhen there is an itteration in which Benito Mussolini hit the home run that won the 1945 World Series for the Tornonto Kilted Yaksmen.

True, and then that further proves that the question in and of itself is pointless to ask.

Also, theoretically probability could exist entirely if superstring theory is true, but recently they've found that there are weaknesses in the arguments.

the probability of the statement 'some statements have a probability that equals 1' is 1.

How about "You will die"? After all, that is life's only certainty. Death, surely, has a probabilty of 1?
I have not found any evidence to prove that I'm not immortal, yet. ;)