Licia Verde - What is the Deep Nature of Probability? 

... Terence McKenna, who I consider to be the most brilliant mind available on the internet, has honoring and regaining the feminine as a main ongoing theme.

@Jake Hoberg 1983 ... Jake, LOL, yes, things go better with women! My favorite woman is wonderhussy at wonderhussy Adventures on RU-vid. Peace and love brother.

@Jake Hoberg 1983 Jake, I will definitely check out Lisa Randall. Thanks.

@Jake Hoberg 1983 There are known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

Be a liar is definitely better than to be "closer to truth" or "lesswrong".

@Jake Hoberg 1983 Don't blame God, hate Hall 2000, that computer from 2001: A Space Odyssey movie that was only doing it's job.

Licia Verde is crazy, but definitely telling some truth here.

What I meant to say is that during Richard's time we didn't have a complete physical theory and no one (including Richard) really understood the implications of quantum mechanics. Even many years later to the present time we still don't have a complete theory or understanding of physical reality.

to quote the esteemed scholar Elaine Bennett: fake, fake, fake quoteinvestigator.com/2015/04/20/coincidence/ "Coincidence is God’s way of remaining anonymous. - Albert Einstein In conclusion, Albert Einstein was first linked to the quotation under examination many years after his death. There is no substantive evidence that Einstein ever employed the saying."

@Jake Hoberg 1983 And he did not mean what you think it means. It's just another out of context distortion. First let's see the context and start with the words he actually said, in what context they were said and to whom he said them. Max Born was a fellow scientist, strong advocate for Quantum Mechanics, which Einstein himself proposed early on. Einstein did not like the uncertainties that lead to Schrodinger's Cat and Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle" but, scientist that he was, he could not deny the evidence. Born's work lead him to suggest Einstein’s "ghost field" actually was something Born called "probability amplitude." He, therefore, on December 4, 1926, wrote a letter to Born in which he expressed his objection: "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the ‘old one’. I, at any rate, am convinced that He is not playing dice." The dialog continued back and forth over the years as more data were collected. In 1944 he wrote to Born: "We have become antipodean in our scientific expectations. You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture" Notice it is BORN's god, not Einsteins. Clearly Einstein is saying, much clearer the second time, your god, according to your theory, is playing dice with reality. Back in 1926, it is also Born's dice-playing god he is objecting to, not his own god. Einstein himself cleared up the matter in a letter he wrote in 1954: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

@Jake Hoberg 1983 context and more information. I doubt he had a pretty little box or a box of anything. His writings said he accepts the Heienberg Uncertainty Principle and Born's Paradox - but he didn't like them.

I just remember what my physics teacher told me over 40 years ago - it has always intrigued me. I am now a Problacist and I believe that everything can be explained by an inherent ‘consciousness’ of the universe. ‘Spooky action at a distance’ is most simply explained by the universe ‘knowing’ what is going to happen and responding accordingly. But of course ‘real’ scientists hate that idea and can’t countenance it. They have the arrogance to believe that every working of the universe is mathematically explainable and they are spending $10s Bns to prove it, but haven’t come up with any other explanation for more than a century!

@Jake Hoberg 1983 says (speaking of Einstein) "on his death bed. Admitting that consciousness was affecting the results of the experiment. " I am not aware of that. Do you have a citation for the original text of the letter?

Hypnosis is one, dreams are another and reality is third probability, all together result in your existence.

i would be more moderate (probabilist here) on that: in my opinion, when comparing two models, it may offer some information as to which one fits the data the most (not an indication of objective truth but it's something real). A portion of science is based on non-scientific arguments ( for instance how to allocate resources between competing explanations) and this could be an addition to that process

Fush Umang .......is consciousness inherent in the universe to bring about its required reality?

@@richardmasters8424 Yes, that is a likely possibility plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-decoherence/. Alternatively multiverse is true and we happen to be in the universe where everything appears to collapse exactly according to observation (within Heisenberg uncertainty). In my opinion both claims are equally fantastic, I like Neumann's a little better as a religious man.

Shoop - yes both difficult to believe, but I find the multiverse theory much more ridiculous than the belief that consciousness is inherent in our own universe to bring about its required reality.

or the measurement problem is not solved... It is entirely possible that we don't fully understand how/why wave functions collapse

Do your own interviews

You are merely stating frequentist dogma, which puts you about 100 years behind the times. But probabilities may also be viewed as measuring degree of justified credence -- these are known as Bayesian or epistemic probabilities. It's been shown in various ways that if you want to reason consistently about "degrees of credence," you need to use the laws of probability.

@@kevinvanhorn2193 Do you really understand what you are talking about? Or just repeating what you learned from those teachers who themselves did not understand what they were talking about.

@@hyperduality2838 Yes, you're right, that's the uncertainty physicists usually talk about. I just wanted to highlight the other two that are less common in physics language. In my PhD, I recently explore the implications of these two. Thanks for your comments.

That sounds reasonable. What we call randomness is simply something we don't understand, often because the complexity boggles the mind.

Random is a mathematical term, it does not mean "unknown" as we might use it in day to day speech. Any form of "random" factor with respect to this discussion will be perfectly consistent to all persons.

@@johnsmith1474. What does it mean then?

@@Hombolicious - Did you graduate from high school?

@@ThalesPo - First of all, your approach is smart, simply ask the most basic question. A lot of people, motivated by what they presume to be obvious, refuse to do this, so score one for your ability to learn more deeply by virtue of making the right inquiry. Randomness has a literary meaning related to aimlessness or open-endedness. But in science it is related to unpredictability, the inability to use an algorithm to find an exact answer. This is not the same as a thing being unknown. For instance quantum mechanics is the most accurate & precise area of science, but all that precision is expressed as probabilities. The classic example is that, if you have 100 billion atoms of a radioactive substance, you know EXACTLY when half of it will decay radioactively, nothing is more certain than when 50 billion of the atoms will decay and we call that the "half-life." However at the same time every atom is exactly identical, and there is no way to predict WHICH of the atoms will decay and which will not. The half life of the total is known exactly, but which decay and which do not is absolutely random. Read the section in here under "science." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness. Thanks for demonstrating smart inquiry, nothing is beyond you, given time, if you stay on that style of learning.

Probability Its Just a Tool

why?

@@pmcate2 Because you must perform infinite amount of calculations before balance can converge into exactly neutral state.

@@xspotbox4400 You're not making sense. You took a bunch of fancy terms and made a nonsensical sentence. What kind of calculations? Balance of what? What is an exactly neutral state? You need to explain yourself better.

@@pmcate2 0 does not exist, it's just a mathematical convenience imported from India and Arabia into western world long ago. Romans didn't know 0, so they couldn't work with large numbers, they had to use many symbols to describe simple five digit number, for example. You can read more about this or watch prof.Jim Khalili videos. 0 could mean many things, it can close a set of numbers, but usually it mean perfect balance between two opposite potentials. In example, we have negative set of infinite numbers on one side and positive set on other, 0 is where both infinities exactly cancel out. Or it could be any other balance, like in electricity, magnets and gravity. Problems is, things are not point like dots and can never move at perfectly straight path, matter is smeared at larger area and there are is only probability something exist at certain here and now. Same goes with mathematics, sure we can simplify number theory, but once we dig deeper into prove for axioms and theorems, things can get complicated beyond believe. Actually i doubt we can ever count from 1 to 2, there are infinite steps between those different, but same entities. 1 is obviously not same as 2, it could mean one and another one, but you have to prove it, start somewhere and explain what do you mean by 1 exactly, where did it come from and what are it's limits. I better not start, it's complicated, but can be done. 3 is entire another dimension of problems, in theory you can split things at exact half, but try split in 3 parts, no way it can be done. 3 is hard to distinguish from many, if possible at all, because infinity in number theory. And all this apply only to mathematical theory, reality can never be split at exact half's, or it can, but we will never know where, when and who made it there. There's also something like 3 body problem, if you want to research further, dimensional mathematics is yet another beast. There is no nothing and we can never know exact balance, there's only most probable outcome, but never exact answer, things can never disappear from this universe, because reasons. .

​@@xspotbox4400 Imaginary numbers don't exist either. Do you have a problem with them? Perfect circles don't exist, do you have a problem with geometry because of that? Mathematically, there is only a problem with 0 if a contradiction arises from it's definition. To date, there have been no contradictions found in ZFC. Now, you are correct in the sense that there may be a contradiction. So if you firmly believe that 0 causes problems, then you need to prove that there is a contradiction. Otherwise, there seems to be no reason to think that 0 leads to problem anymore than any other mathematical definition. Where the hell are you getting the fact that things can be split exactly in half but not into thirds? Btw what is your background in math?