What is Chance? - Probability | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY

In this Wireless Philosophy video, Nina Emery (Mount Holyoke College) explores the nature of chance and probability.

Subscribe!

More on Nina Emery:

----

Wi-Phi @ YouTube:

Wi-Phi @ Khan Academy:

Twitter:

Facebook:

Instagram:
@wiphiofficial

----

Help us caption & translate this video!

[Sam_on_YouTube]

A philosopher who actually properly acknowledges the constraints of science! Thank you, it is frustratingly rare. I've been trying to get Ollie over at philosophy tube to do that for a while. He responded to a comment of mine in his last video, but mischarqcterized my comment as saying that physics just answers these questions, and then dismismissed that straw man answer. I like his channel, but his aversion to the use of science as a contraint on philosophical theories frustrates me about, not only him, but way too many philosophers.

It's getting more common that philosophers will take this into account properly, as you did. You don't need to understand WHY your carbon 14 example works, only what the conclusion is and what premises must be rejected in order to throw that conclusion into question. It's helpful to understand the physics in between, but not a prerequisite for good analytical metaphysics, as this video demonstrates.

[ShadowStarshine]

I think there's too strong a desire to see scientific explanations as a series of causative statements rather than really strong correlative. The universe doesn't need to be 'understood' any deeper than saying about it what we can observe. If Carbon-14 decays in 20 mins half the time, then just be aware of that observation. If further study reveals something about which Carbon-14's will and will not do this, add that information to your correlative knowledge base.

[StephenGillie]

I'm having trouble understanding the purpose behind this video. Is there a confusion that probability is based on perception and not on events?

[Starcrash]

_Is_ there no difference between atoms that decay and those that don't? Just because something is so far unknown doesn't make it unknowable, and because atoms are so hard to observe, that's probably the case here.

[cliffordhodge]

If one in a million people get killed in plane crashes each year,   year after year,   they say "Your chances of dying in a plane crash are only one in a million."  But if the description is changed, and we say, "Your chances of dying in a plane crash this year, given that you fly every day, would be one in 900, 000."  So chance seems to depend upon what description (of all those possible) is used to represent the situation.

[dannyduchamp]

Subjectivists are obviously correct.

A mind-independent concept of probability either butchers the word "probability" beyond all recognition, or posits magic.

[cliffordhodge]

As a proposition about what will happen has more factors included, as it grows into a longer and longer conjunction,  it will cease to really be about chance, and asymptotically approach the point of being a statement of strict causal determinism.  In popular discourse they talk about, e.g. your chances of dying in a plane crash.  They don't take into account the fact that some people never fly, which just makes such talk seem foolish most of the time.

[charliesteiner]

This notion of chance seems to rest entirely on non-determinism in quentum mechanics. After all, if truly complete information would let you predict the future exactly, a Laplace's Demon, then there are definitely no chances, just credences.
The strangeness and potential non-parsimony of fundamental chances may be the best argument, then, for a deterministic interpretation of QM. This might not show up in a chemistry textbook, but you can make QM deterministic by adding another object that moves along with the particles (Bohmian mechanics), or even just by a highly literal interpretation of the equations that doesn't allow chance but raises some questions about subjective experience (Everett interpretation).
Given the dependence non-trivial physics topics, does this mean philosophers who want to talk about these issues should take an advanced physics course?

[fatsquirrel]

Nothing can explain itself?
What about autological words, you know, words that describe themselves.

[MichaBerger]

Quantum Bayesianism does what is described here as very difficult. It takes a Bayesian, i.e. knowledge-based, definition of probability and uses it as an interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. ("Interpretation": philosophical position about what the equations of QM means. There is no difference in equations or what they predict; this isn't about science. It's about what reality the science is describing.)

[Marina-jgiu]

The creators of "The secret" didn't like this

[dngentwiseman]

HAHASHAH! LOL. I am a simpleton, never been to "higher education" nor theological studies so ex..cu..se me. However, from what I heard presented and what I read in the comments, the word chance, is the non-religious person expression for that hated word GOD. Take careful note, a horse by any other other name is still a horse. The "pure" scientist with his scientific methodology will have nothing to do with the word chance or GOD and the "great thinkers" philosophers are tripping all over it.

Talk about objective probability how many "Big Bangs" should it take to have analysis in which each measure is based on a recorded observation or a long history of collected data. What data could we analyze before the bang objectively? The religious among us stumble and fight over the word GOD and their counterpart does the same with the word Chance. Both are seeking to understand, comprehend a reality that they know does exist, but refuse to believe it is beyond their analysis or dogmatic interpretation.

[hannesssss]

mind-independent is the wrong word for objective probability. the mind is part of the “independent” world! objective probability is more like a not achievable concept of everything watched!

[carloalbertoagosti]

What if facts were all mind-dependent? And why not?