YHWH666

probability is not certainty. DUH!


but is the method by wich we measure probability certain?
if the method by wich we determine probabilty is certain then we are fine. but if probability is only probable, then how how did we determine that it was probable in the first place? if we say probability is probable, are we not begging the question?

i think it all comes down to direct experience(NOT faith).direct experience like " I think therefore i am".directly experiencing reality is where we get the "I think" part.

I, personally am certain that i experience reality. i can't communicate it. i can't be certain of others experience. but I, myself, experince a reality. through certain experience i find this reality to be contingent upon laws of logic. these laws are certain. these laws lend to probablity.

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: YHWH666 ]</p>

Kenny

Probability is a often a difficult concept to get a handle on philosophically as there is not one, but really several different concepts associated with it. Consider the following propositions:

In each of the above examples, the concept of probability is subtly different. Blurring of these different notions of probability, from my observations, often leads to a great deal of confusion in philosophical discussions. Anyway, that concludes my random commentary for today.

God Bless,
Kenny

Francois Tremblay

When you say you are "certain", that is misleading. Obviously, since we are not divine, but rather our mind has an identity and works in a fallible way, we cannot be rationally "certain" of anything. We can, however, attribute a high probability to something. Probability really underpins the whole concept of knowledge.

The probability of something is a rough measure based on two criterias : the scope of the knowledge on which we have based our conclusion, and the strength of the deductions that lead to the conclusion. For example, in the case of "I think therefore I am", we experience these facts in our very consciousness, therefore we have an extremely high level of confidence on the substrate and method on which this conclusion relies.

1sec

Probability works in real life. I take a certain turn to the right because I sense that it is less likely that that there should be a traffic jam on that street.

In time this becomes a certainty.

jpbrooks

This is a good point.
We must assume that our knowledge of reality is, at basis, certain, no matter how well what we believe that we know corresponds to reality. Without this assumption of certainty, there can be no cogent defense against total skepticism.

Fortunately, it is possible to increase our degree of certainty about reality through methods of inquiry such as scientific investigation.

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

YHWH666

That's my point. you can't be certain of anything (at lest things like "red means stop green means go).
the entire base of one's epistemological framework is probability. but how do we know probability works?

If you say "because it works in the real world" your just begging the question. how do you know it works in the real world? how do you know that your knowledge of steet signs meaning wasn't just implanted there a few seconds ago? how do you know you not in a "matrix" world?

You know because of probability.

but you can't use probability to prove it's self. without probability you have no measure of the outside world in the first place. so how could you say it fits with the real world?

that is much like this:

(1)probability MAY be an acceptable measure of reality.
(2)probability is probable.
(3)Therefore probability is real.
--------------------------------------------------

to follow that logic:
(1)Madame Morgana,the phsycic medium, claims to have supernatural divining abilities.
(2)The fantastic Swamie Sam claims to have phsycic powers too.
(3)Swamie Sam uses his "powers" and claims that Madame Morgana's powers are real as well.
(4) therefore Madame Morgana has Magical powers.
--------------------------------------------------

Can any one else see the fallacy here?

unless you are certain (or at least assume certainty) on some level then your entire worldview falls apart.
unless you acknowledge certainty on the level of 2+2=4 and "i think therefore i am" then you have no worldview.

---note--- by certainty i mean knowledge that CANNOT be false. total rational certainty.
---interesting to note "probability is probable" sounds much like "it just is" or "i expirence it directly" hehehe.

Malaclypse the Younger

Depending on how and where you are applying it, the requirement of certainty can be rendered pragmatically useless, especially if you impose the proposition that any uncertain belief is by definition rationally unwarranted.

Even though I am fundamentally uncertain that probability theory is itself "true", it has proven so pragmatically useful in the past that I will continue to apply it to the future.

Kent Stevens

I think that you are getting into the problem of proving reason. If we use reason to prove reason we are assuming the premise that we are trying to prove. I know that you are trying to avoid this problem of proving reason but it is hard to get away from it.

Reasoning is dependent on laws of logic. If there are no laws of logic then your reasoned conclusions could be true and false simultaneously. In for you to reason you must exist. Our reasoning is caused by us. If we do not exist we cannot cause reasoning. Reasoning also assumes certain premises to be true if the deductions are to be also to be true.

For our reason we use induction from past experience. Induction is only probablistic in that just because we have seen the sun rise every day it does not mean that the sun will rise tomorrow or a billion years from now. Saying the sun will rise tomorrow is only going to be correct for a period of time. If induction is only probablistic then any reasoning that uses induction is also going to be probablistic in nature.

We say that probability works for us in the real world. But how can we prove that probability will work for us in the future. We can only do that by using induction or generalising from examples. But induction itself is only probablistic in that it does not always work.

Hume is also to have argued that reasoning is only going to work most of the time with real people. He said something like all causal processes are probablistic. Reasoning is a causal process therefore reasoning is probablistic.

The problem of proving reason is shown in some of the following statements. I have proved reason by assuming that it is true. I have assumed that I exist in order to be able to prove that I exist. I haved assumed I need premises in reasoning to prove that I need premises in reasoning. I have proved induction by using induction. I have used the laws of logic to prove the laws of logic.

I suggest that it is also circular to assume probability to prove that probability works.

jpbrooks

Now I think I see your point, YHWH. I would say that in the absence of convincing evidence that we live in a "matrix" world, it is simpler and more practical to use Occam's Razor to cut out the "matrix world" hypothesis entirely. As long as our experiences of reality continue to be compatible with assuming either a "matrix world" or not, it is simpler to accept that our experiences of reality do indeed provide some reliable information about reality.
After all, the only way that we could have come to know about probability in the first place, is by having relied on our senses to provide us with some information about reality that we hold as certain.

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

YHWH666

"Depending on how and where you are applying it, the requirement of certainty can be rendered pragmatically useless, especially if you impose the proposition that any uncertain belief is by definition rationally unwarranted.
Even though I am fundamentally uncertain that probability theory is itself "true", it has proven so pragmatically useful in the past that I will continue to apply it to the future."

Really? how was probability "poven" pragmatically useful in the "past"? how do you reason that if something occurs in the "past" that it's liable to occur in the future? probability?

How do you know time exists? Because you can sense it moving? And what does that sense consist of, anyway? You remember things changing, you see them moving, so you insist time is real. But is it not true that you see only one instant at any given time? The scene you saw an instant before is only in your memory, however real it may seem, and memory is static. You cannot see motion or change – you can only deduce them from fixed memories. Motion deduced from fixedness – does this not sound strange?

The only reason you have to suspect that time exists or the universe is not a "matrix" world is probability. As jpbrooks pointed out you can use occam's razor and find that the most PROBABLE circumstance is that time exists and so does the planet earth as we know it.
I think it's obvious that we have to accept certainty on some level, otherwise we have no reason to suspect that the universe does or doesn't exist. Without probability (and therfore certainty) a consistant person would become comatose, haveing no reason to suspect that that any effort would have any positive or negative consequenses.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: YHWH666 ]</p>