What is the Deep Meaning of Probability? | Episode 2206 | Closer To Truth 

Lol. He's a classic pretentious airhead!😅

Lol😅😅😅😅

He has retained the curiosity of a child who takes a screwdriver to an old clock, and it's wonderful to be a beneficiary of it. 😊

She believes the universe is deterministic, not probabilistic.

She's probably the smartest entertainer in this universe, as entertaining as NGT but smarter.

@@marcv2648 if that’s what she believes, it’s probably true! Check out her video debunking the quantum eraser. Everyone else had me believing it was magic, but her explanation is so grounded and clear. I believe PBS Space Time even acknowledged she was correct and revised their own explanation of the experiment.

All hail the Science Karen!!!!!

We're so happy you found us! 💫

Interesting.

AI doesn’t necessarily follow Bayesian statistics unless the model used Bayesian methods.

The AI that’s making headlines right now isn’t based on classical statistics or Bayesian statistics. These are non-parametric models with no deep statistical theory behind them. They work at making predictions but nobody really knows why.

This topic wouldn't be made 20 years ago . As a matter of fact you would get diagnosed for ADHD 30 years ago for telling this to your teachers.

Right it’s giving Carl Sagan

what are the chances.

Agreed. I've missed the last couple of weeks or so due to a RU-vid mixup. I suddenly realized something was missing in my daily feed and it was, unmistakably, Mr. Kuhn and his quest for truth. Happily, I've got some catching up to do.

Watched a few of Sabine's videos, she's always right, just ask her... has for Avi Loeb, and I'm aware of his opinions on the ET subject, in this case, I think that Avi is going down the rabbit hole...

@@festeradams3972 I would surely be curious about what Avi Loeb did not say but could of...🧐☺️

That's Sabine's schtick, isn't it? Bagging on other scientists and complaining about crap. It got old

@@k-3402 I think it's healthy for science if scientists are honest about their opinions of each other's work. In fact that's the process. The whole point of science is to take a whole lot of chaff and try and find the few grains of wheat in there.

​@@k-3402 lmao like a Science Karen. 😂

That’s the idea that outcomes in quantum mechanics are determined by ‘hidden variables’ that deterministically account further a given result, but appear random because we can’t measure them. Recent verifications of Bell’s Theorem has ruled out local hidden variables, but some teams are working on superdeterministic theories that include non-local hidden variables.

Actually, life, imo, seems full of uncertainty, especially at the smaller intervals. You can have long term goals and require dozens of dozens of decisions to get there.

like to play pick 3 game?

@XvonPocalypse >"The universe does not know the future . ?" Is there any reason or evidence to suppose that it does? Can you give an account of what 'the universe' knowing anything means?

Personally I think Laplace and his followers are wrong. Both Coppenhagen interpretation in physics and Information theory in digital science have shown that probability is a fundamental being of the universe. Let me call it as "PDAS = probability ding an sich" (per Kant's nomenclature). Then I am saying that none of the interviewees really thinks PDAS exists. Most of the commentators also have this negative view on PDAS. I am a computational scientist. The video didn't mention that information and entropy in informational science are defined on probabilities. If you believe the information stored in your computers is a real being, then you have to believe that PDAS is also a real being.

There is zero evidence for other universes. So the biggest misconception about the multiverse is that it’s a bone fide theory that’s been proven. It isn’t-it doesn’t really have a mathematical basis- In the cycle of science it remains at the hypothesis stage .

The _They…_

But is that 100 on 70 based on assumption or facts?

@@mikhilsaju6929 *"But is that 100 on 70 based on assumption or facts?"* ... All probabilities are based on a combination of assumptions and facts.

What you're missing here is the distinction between prior probability and credence. Prior probability is the probability you estimate knowing the mechanism involved, so for example the likelihood of the outcome of a fair die you are about to roll. This is the kind of probability we are most familiar with. Credence is your estimate of the likelihood of an outcome that has already been decided. For example I put a coin in one of two empty boxes and ask you to give your estimate of the chances that the coin is in one box over the other. This could be an entirely deterministic process, maybe I could only reach one of the boxes to put the coin in it so there could be only one box it is in, but you will probably say 50% because you don't know which it is. In this latter case the probability has nothing to do with the actual position of the coin or why it's there, it's purely a statement about your lack of knowledge about its position. People mix up these different kinds of probability all the time, but they are totally distinct.

⁠No its not.

@@simonhibbs887 I'm not following your explanation. Couldn't we say the movement of the die is also a deterministic process (no quantum, just deterministic Newtonian forces)? So we just don't know which outcome of the dice will come up?

What is phich?

@@longcastle4863 phich is model math proceendings that show up How figure out though experiement reality.

Hmmm, I do t see how you came to that first realization. Care to elaborate on it at all?

@@mikebasketball11 Happy to, for a sentient being which have developed free will, there are an endless amount of options to discover and possibly act on. These range from inaction in every shape and form, to constructive to destructive actions. This is particularly clear when we see actions and thinking processes as interconnected and recursive, rather than isolated events.

Our senses clearly have shortcomings but "good enough" is evolution's main motto.

I agree. First you have to see if something is possible and then ask about the probabilities.

You seem to be making a cogent point. I am interested in what you mean. Please refer to the ideas about "doubt". Is it the same as ignorance or is it specific like uncertainty?

@@kallianpublico7517 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7ewNHzi8oZA.html

Schrödinger also said something about a cat, but he never actually owned a cat. It was named Fellini.

Probably.

Schrödonger was also famous for sleeping with married wives and having admitted to taking plasure in sharing the bed with someone betraying his husband. What I am hinting at is that he ws a rather dishonest man whose intellectual dishonesty probably spilled over into other areas of his life. I own this book of his "Mind and Matter", an endless ramble of nonsense trying to make him sound smart.

Fine. But what IS 'variability', what IS 'randomness'? WHY do 'errors' occur naturally? Why are computer nerds always male, while cosmologists are female?

The term 'subjective probability' is ambiguous in the literature. It could refer to the betting behavior of a subject, or it could refer to the evidential relations of a subject.

​@@MBarberfan4lifeYes, the correct term here is epistemic, meaning that probability is not a feature of the world per se but a feature of the limitations of our knowledge. Thus when we say there's a 40% chance of rain, we are not making a claim about reality but only about the limits of what we know about the possibility of rain(Empirically all that is claimed is that 40% of the times we claim there's a 40% chance of rain, it will in fact rain) Subjective probability is a different matter and has quite a many complications attached to it no matter how it is defined(including behavioral analysis)

In the event, nothing probable is. ... Q: Do you stick with your first choice? A: Or maybe you're feeling lucky. Imagine calling "heads" on a single toss, and "staying" or calling "tails" as it falls.

You're probably right...

If you knew all the outcomes of the coin forever then it would not be 'predictive' knowledge, it would just be knowledge. Is the problem with the world just a matter of lacking knowledge, of needing to expand out limits to knowing? What evidence do you have for that claim?

While that would be funny, and I would laugh out loud. I'm not so sure it would fit with the tone of this often times "serious" channel. Which is why it would be hilarious.

You're going to have to wait 2,000,000 years😳

42? 42 isn't a prime number! How about 137? 1/137?

No blue. No set. No hike. Just a simple exit. Lol.

​@@michael-4k4000unless you're being sarcastic, it's a reference from the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

Agreed! Closer To Truth has roused my desire to learn more about the fascinating subject of probability.

Indeed.

You have no clue , I am going to answer every question you have and this Man has. This said absolutely nothing, it's time to know the truth and what is! Man made man, this is a fact, I'm going to explain.

I've been following the series for a year or so, watching lots of the 10-15 minute interviews that discuss intersections of consciousness, quantum physics, emergence of complexity, etc. and most of them hit me at just the right time with just the right stuff. I'm a statistician and am really excited to start this video here, especially after reading your comment.

@@cmeimgee . You'll need to get beyond the inveterate shallowness of these presentations.

I must admit that after many years of work in randomized algorithms, the efficacy of randomness for so many algorithmic problems is absolutely mysterious to me. It is efficient, it works; but why and how is absolutely mysterious. Michael Rabin

Man is so selfish that it cannot embrace this randomness and has therefore invented creators whose sole purpose is to create us and shepherd us along…poorly I might add.

Nice one.

Where did you find "Probability 101" in the description of this video?

@@iamavolk The content of the video isn't fair game for comment?

We gain a lot in terms of the ability to reason about random processes and their outcomes in useful ways. They become amenable to analysis. The root of tractable is the latin tractare which means 'to handle'.

like to play pick 3?

If only it had been possible to make any scientific or technological progress over those 60 years (I'm only a few years behind you). Oh well.

For probabilities there's science, for the rest there's religion.

Philosophy is for the birds.... fly, fly, fly away

Philosophy seeks only to clarify the general view of a range of "topics' in order to clarify the illusions of collective "reality". If it succeeds, this is because it makes the work of science, as the fashioning of methods for measuring the nature of the World -- probability outcomes, for example -- more likely to be based on true, as opposed to false, premises and/or untested presumptions. Outright rejection of its importance in establishing a valid ontology of what it is we believe we are actually observing, or whether we can ever be asking the right questions regardless of confirmed results, is never a good bet. If we cannot ask one valid question from an infinity of inconceivable answers, then how should we ask one invalid question from an infinity of conceivable answers? Philosophy succeeds when it encourages one conceivable answer from the first infinity, as often as it encourages one inconceivable answer from the second infinity. To recognize that one might benefit from asking the invalid question in the first case, is equivalent to recognizing a similar benefit by asking the right question in the second case, This is how philosophy "works". Master the knowledge lest you worship the science.