Let's have a philosophical discussion on the origins of probability. Are you a frequentist? Objective (Jaynes, Jeffreys) or subjective (De Finetti) Bayesian?
How would you calculate something like P(Sun Rises Tomorrow)?
>>772829
>Sun Rises Tomorrow
There is no empirical reason to believe this.
>sun rising tommorow
Not without the required blood sacrifice buddy.
>>772829
More like p(if tomorrow, sun has risen)
Well probability is about variables.
It can change depending on variable data, so if we limit it simply to the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun, then its very much a certainty. Given that the rotation/revolution occurs due to the constant gravitational pull generated by the sun and the orbital path the earth takes.
P(Sun Rises Tomorrow)
Zero, the sun doesn't "rise".
>>772998
>correlation = causation
Is Bayes a meme? The journals are full of "a Bayesian approach to...". They redo stuff that we can already do perfectly fine with existing methods (which they call "frequentist"). I guess it's easier to get published now, if you jump onto this bandwagon.
>>772998
>and we understand very well the astronomical movements that create the sunrise, as >>772979#
your word ''understand'' here means ''because I really cling to the fantasy of necessity, since I cannot bear what I call the contingencies of the events in my life, I choose to have faith in whatever formalization of a deductive theory that I heard from some people called scientists, even though these people cannot justify, to me, why clinging to the concept of ''prediction'' tells ''the secret of the universe'' '' .
>>772829
You can only calculate that when you know the probabilities of anything that can happen that could affect the probability of the sun rising.
It's just like we can't calculate how probable it is that there's other life out there in space, because we don't know the probability of life starting somewhere, in any conditions.
>>775264
Drake's equation.
Its been updated many times, but its generally the best known answer for finding out the number of civilization in the universe.
>>772829
P(0) does not mean impossible.
>>775431
it means what ?
>>775431
But it does. It usually means a contradiction.
i.e. what is the probability of you going to the movies and not going to the movies today?
>>775550
Anon is actually right. It is a mathematical necessity that potential outcomes can have zero probability.
Say I tell you that I will arrive at the movie at some random time between 5:00 and 6:00. There are uncountably many possible times in that interval, so the probability of me arriving at any individual time must be zero or else all probabilities would sum to infinity. Yet, I still must arrive at some point.
>>772829
probability is a positive theoretical construct and not a thing in nature. therefore, theories of probability do not have truth values.
>>772829
I don't care about your puny philosophies for bourgeois morons but I wanted to tell you that the only thing you can be 100% certain of is marxist-leninist doctrine in its newest, party-approved version.
Everything else is either reactionary or revisionist therefore lie.
>>772885
>The sun rises
These is no empirical reason to believe this because the sun does not "rise" the earth revolves
>>772829
Well tomorrow is defined as the time at which the sun rises. P(Sun rises tomorrow) = 1.
It's like that Buddhist chant, "the sun shines everyday."
>>775583
>There are uncountably many possible times in that interval, so the probability of me arriving at any individual time must be zero or else all probabilities would sum to infinity.
Care to explain more?
>>778123
The sum of an infinite series need not be infinity, also if time is quantised like we believe distance to be, then there aren't even an infinite number of times between any two times.
>>775962
>the earth revolves
only in a few models invented by a few rationalists.
>>778123
suppose we assume that the sun is equally likely to rise between 5 am and 6 am.
in which case we would represent this, because time is a continuous quality, with a graph there the x axis is time, the units are hours, and between 5 am and 6 am there is a line with y value equal to 1. and at all other times the line has a y value of zero. The y axis has units of probability density, i.e. when you multiply the probability density value by some time interval then you get a probability.
the area underneath the line of the graph is just 1 times 1 so we get that the probability that the sun rises at some point betwee 5 and 6 is equal to 1.
but at any single point in time, say 5 am, the probability of the sun rising is simply given by the area of a recangle with height 1 and width equal to a single point, which is a line. what is the area of a conceptual line? It is zero , right? so there's 0 probability of the sun rising at exactly 5 am, or any other single point between 5 and 6 am.
did you not go to highschool?
>>775696
actually made 1 (one) kek
>>775237
Don't be a fool, probability works the same regardless of which interpretation you use.
>>775258
>that entire fucking post
I am legitimately wondering what series of events happened to you that caused you to type all that up. What happened in your life that caused you to behave this way? I'm being serious, please answer.
You would have to think of every possible scenario that would lead to the Sun "not rising" and estimate the chances. Some things that might stop it's rising:
-Atmosphere is too dark to see the Sun; caused perhaps by volcanic eruption or asteroid collision
-Sun explodes
-Larger astronomical body interferes with our solar system
All of these can be predicted to be approximately zero by modern science, at least for the time period of one day in advance
>>783550
You can begin by taking a course in philosophy of science and asking what you expect from all your inferences.
>>775583
It's sophistic shit like this that gives mathematicians a bad name.
>>783578
>All of these can be predicted to be approximately zero by modern science, at least for the time period of one day in advance
And what if it's something that's outside of your framework of previous experiences and expectations based on those experiences?
>>784131
It Doesn't deny what he said
>>784109
It's not. You're just too stupid to understand something as basic as irrational numbers
>>775367
Drake's equation is a fucking meme since we truly don't know how life starts.
I'm Finnish, so 0.
>>784109
Your're a moron. Almost Certain and Almost Impossible are defined, valuable statistical terms.
>ITT: Zeno's paradox
