From: James Wetterau (jwjr@ignition.name.net)
Date: Thu Oct 28 1999 - 09:58:12 MDT
Amara Graps says:
> James Wetterau (jwjr@ignition.name.net) Tue, 26 Oct 1999 writes:
>
>
> >So far, the only non-circular definition I have found is a
> >mathematical definition claiming certainty in results iff we
> >take limits as the number of experiments goes to infinity.
>
> That's the "frequentist" definition of probability. I don't find the
> definition satisfying either. You may find the Bayesian perspective
> of probability more natural and intutive.
...
Thanks for the pointers! I'll check this Bayesian stuff out soon. I
actually just encountered a discussion of Bayesian probability
yesterday in an essay about psychological problems. It actually
reminds me of an alternate model of probability that I've been
struggling toward. This all started when my girlfirend came home
from her job one day and challenged me to come up with a non-circular
definition of probability and she was unsatisfied with the limit on
the results of trials going to infinity.
To think aloud here the alternate conception I came up with was the
idea of representing the proportional size of the unknown state sets
that lead to certain results, as modified by the known factors. For a
coin flip, for example, if I hold the coin at an identical position
each time, but slightly increase the force each time I flip it, I
suppose it should be possible to cause the coin to flip first n half
rotations before landing, then n+1, up to n+m, at which point I can't
impart more force. Now if I simply cannot accurately control the
force, the outcome will be the result of the probability weighting of
the range of forces that amount to each number of half flips. Of
course there are lots of other factors in a typical coin flip, but
what interests me in this imaginary controlled case is that even then
I can see how the continuous range of states might lead to a fairly
well balanced set of results, provided the state ranges are roughly
equal in size.
What troubles me about this notion is that I seem to be saying that I
can estimate a size of sets of unknowns based on actual outcomes.
What does it really mean to say that the size of these sets have a
certain proportion? There is some amount of force that will actually
be imparted, so in a sense only one state point actually pertains.
Perhaps it's time to do the reading. :-)
All the best,
James
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:38 MST