![]() Characteristics, proponents and detractors are summarised in the following table. The two components are less-colloquially known as ‘epistemic’ uncertainty and ‘ontic’ uncertainty, respectively. I am not the first to find this dichotomy natural. Some uncertainty would thus originate ‘in the real world’, in the laws of nature. A prima facie reading of modern quantum mechanics suggests that this is the case. If it does exist then there are random number generators built into the fabric of the universe, with the future to be determined by the randomness spat out along the way. If not, then reality is a clockwork, with the current positions and momenta of subatomic particles fully determining the future. It is debatable whether or not this component exists. The second component is fundamental, real indeterminism. This locates uncertainty ‘in our heads’ or-more precisely-in the discrepancy between reality and our brains’ mental model thereof. The first component is uncertainty arising in human minds due to a lack of knowledge about the state of the reality. Probabilities are stand-ins for the more nebulous concept of uncertainty which, as I see it, can have two components. Set aside for a moment the vast philosophical literature on conceptions of probability, and even the notion of numerical probabilities altogether. But the mechanics of uncertainty do matter if we care about sating metaphysical curiosity which I, for one, do. A remarkable feature of the maths of probability is that it is apathetic to your definition thereof: it is useful despite us not really knowing what we are talking about. Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic (1910)ĭoes it really matter how uncertainty works in the real world? Not really. Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true. So long as the methods are useful in making predictions or understanding data, it’s best not to worry too much about whether they correspond to how uncertainty works in the real world. When learning the maths behind statistics or random processes, we are more-or-less cornered into accepting a pragmatic definition. There is something deeply unintuitive and forced about thinking probabilistically: trying to quantify the instantaneous implosion of numerous possibilities into singular fact. This line of reasoning doesn’t mesh with any of the common conceptions of probability, but that doesn’t immediately render it flawed, and I can sympathise with the joke’s premise. ![]() ![]() Lottery victories? Asteroid impacts? Spontaneous combustion? All (apparently) decided on a metaphorical coin toss. The chance that any given event will occur, she says, is fifty-fifty. I have a friend who maintains that probabilities are a Stoppardian conspiracy of mathematicians. Limits of knowability are discussed throughout, and research cited. State complete Epistemic Status Reasonably confident. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |