From: James Wetterau <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Assuming that the probability is in fact uncertainty, do we not
>still have a circularity in the definition? Let's take coin
>flipping. Let's pretend that we have good historical data showing
>close to 50% heads / 50% tails, with no apparent correlation to
>any other factor. So we hypothesize that the state sets that lead
>to heads or tails are both about equal in size. We've received
>the 50/50 results *up until now* due to the flip occurring in a
>world state that leads to heads half the time and tails half the
>Now consider future flipping. Just because the state sets are
>roughly equal in size, why do we believe that future flips will be
>roughly equally divided between those that produce heads and
>tails? Because the probability of the flipper being in any
>particular state from among the state space that leads to a
>particular result is about 50%. So we're back to appealing to
>probability. We've moved the probability, not explained it.
I'll make it more interesting.
I was watching a show about math, and there was a mathematician who studied probability, and who was also an amateur magician. Bottom line, he could stand there flipping a coin and produce any result he wanted, he demonstrated flipping 10 consecutive heads for the camera.
His point was about making sure you have a random process, I also got out of it not to bet on coin flips with this guy...
Arthur "the brain" Rothstein would have been proud....
Member, Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888 Mars Society, www.marssociety.org
Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W