Philosophical difficulties of Probability

Hello, this is me again.
> There is one question kept puzzling me for years:
> the two facet of probabilities. Often times we are
> given that there is X/Y chance, according to the
> past record that event A will happen, then we expect it
> will happen with X/Y chance. Simple, isn’t it?
> It isn’t that simple given what happen later is
> NOT merely a RESULT of a probabilistic process, it also
> CONTRIBUTE to the new set of probability and may
> alter the previous probability to a new value. Moreover,
> how does the probability X/Y come at the first place? It
> come from measurement of a large amount of days WITH
> a prior probability a certain event will happen.
> However, that probability is ALTERed every time when
> a new sample is taken. Now, does the previously held
> value has any VALIDITY?
> For example, presume that someone has measure ring
> or sunny for 10 days and s/he get the result of 4
> rain and 6 sunny. Now s/he conclude that there is a 4/10
> chance tomorrow will rain ACCORDING to the RECORD.
> However, that doesn’t say much about whetehr it will
> rain tomorrow or not, or at worst: Even given the
> information of what happen later, it does NOT by
> itself prove or disprove the validity of the
> previously held probability! In other words, there
> is NO INDEPENDENCE between process or result, the
> result is PART of the process, and it feedback to the
> process and the PROCESS itself.
> Given enough time, experimental probability will
> equal to true probability is a GROSSLY misleading
> statement. The only true value exist ONLY in our
> mind.
> I believe there are some philosophical difficulties
> in concieve the branch of Mathematic call
> probabilities.
> What do you think?


One Response to Philosophical difficulties of Probability


在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入: Logo

您的留言將使用 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Google+ photo

您的留言將使用 Google+ 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )


您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )


連結到 %s

%d 位部落客按了讚: