[geocentrism] probability
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:14:01 +1000
Well you all know what I would say about quantitising probability..
Probability is a word meaning liklihood. It is not a mathmatical quantity.
especially when it comes to evaluating reality. Even a probability of 100% in
any situation, does not make it either certain or true.
In fact in todays pagan world, I would have to give 1% of the people as most
probably holding the truth, and those of the contrary view, 99.9% in error.
Philip
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Selbrede
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 3:14 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Question begging
On Mar 22, 2007, at 10:43 PM, Robert Bennett wrote:
….In passing, I note that "In mathematics, probabilities always lie between
zero and one." (Emphasis added).
Actually, Robert didn't write that, he's quoting Paul Deema, so let's
straighten THAT out first!
Second, you might be surprised to know that this is not universally held to
be true!
"Really?" you might ask me. "Who, pray tell, would seriously entertain a
probability that does not fall between zero and one inclusive? Surely some
crackpot, right?"
And you'd be wrong.
For the Festschrift for Jean-Pierre Vigier, noted physicist and Nobel
laureate Richard Feynman wrote an essay entitled "Negative Probability," where
he does, in fact, defend as a quantum mechanical necessity the need for
negative probabilities to exist.
It turns out that the constraint in quantum mechanics is merely that the sum
of all the possible outcomes equals 1. So, you can have a probability of 1.5
and -0.5 for an event, and the quantum mechanical considerations will work out
correctly. (This is another reason why I regard quantum mechanics as the
physical equivalent of dividing by zero -- you can get any result you want,
including mounting the well-known proof that 1 = 2.)
So, it is interesting that Feynman even contributed to the Festschrift,
insofar as Feynman likes the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
while Vigier spent his career defending the de Broglie-Bohm-Vigier approach to
QM (the stochastic causal interpretation that points to a deterministic
classical subquantum domain). But the reason he contributed is clear when you
read his essay -- he knows that Vigier has a point that conventional QM leads
to negative probabilities, so Feynman feels he's under compulsion to defend
that concept. And so it goes.
In other words, there's no statement, be it ever so harmonious with
mathematics, logic, and common sense, that a highly regarded Nobel laureate
can't be found who will gladly trash it for all it's worth. Including the idea
that probabilities ALWAYS lie between zero and one. You think like THAT, and
you'll NEVER get a Nobel prize!
Martin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 22/03/2007
7:44 AM
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] probability
