Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

skip to main |
skip to sidebar
## Friday, May 02, 2008

###
Happy Talk

## Other People's Blogs

## Other People's other stuff

## My Posts by kind

## My Posts by date

only the unfit evolve

The final bit of my tryptich, a modern-physical instantiation of Levy's Paradox, will be appearing (in a graduate session) at the Joint Sessions in Aberdeen in July (dream come true :-)

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

- A Small, Sunny Garden
- Aimee Stoddart
- Alexander Pruss's Blog
- ali cavanaugh
- amarabierto
- Anti-Dada
- Aporia
- Art Propelled
- Art Space Liliana Soja
- Arts of Tiwago
- blog.kennypearce.net
- BOKMANIA
- Brains
- Bright Moments
- British Birds
- bruise collector
- brutal sparrow
- Carl Bovis Nature Photography
- Certain Doubts
- Clothes, Cameras and Coffee
- Conscious Entities
- crimes perfeitos
- CyBeRGaTa
- DATABLOG
- decomania
- Dorothe Domke Photography
- Eaten By Ducks
- echo mountain
- Elza Jazz
- Entia et Nomina
- epiphenom
- Ethical Realism
- Evolving Thoughts
- EYE-LIKEY
- Fake Plastic Trees are Dead
- Fernando Alvarez foto-Blog
- Flickers of Freedom
- Footnotes on Epicycles
- Fotografie & Glucksmomente
- GirlsDrawinGirls
- Good Math, Bad Math
- GRAIN PIXELS
- GreenUPCam
- grey-blue dreams
- Honest Toil
- Hyperbole and a Half
- I Have Seen The Whole Of The Internet
- In Living Color
- In Search of Logic
- IN VIA
- Joanne Mattera Art Blog
- Jussaro Branco FOTOGRAFIAS
- Kristine Moran Blog
- language goes on holiday
- Late Afternoon
- Le Aly di Lia di Donatella Marraoni
- Le Reflet de mes Yeux
- Leiter Reports
- Lemmings
- Leopard and Lavender
- LIBERAL CONSPIRACY
- Lil Black Bloody Hood
- Lily Mae Martin
- Lisa Gloria
- Little Blue Tower
- LogBlog
- Logic Matters
- M
- Many Souffan
- Marina Dieul
- Martha Brettshneider
- Matters of Substance
- metaphysical values
- Modern Landscapes
- My Journey
- my life as april
- NATURETASTIC BLOG
- Naturpunkt
- nicky linzey
- Norman Engel Fine Art
- Not Exactly Rocket Science
- Painting from life
- Paintings from the Street
- PEA Soup
- Philosophical Percolations
- Philosophy, et cetera
- PhotographyBLOG
- Practical Ethics
- PUBLIC ENEMY
- real life is elsewhere
- Siris
- Sprachlogik
- Sukru Duzgoren
- The Noumenon Revelation
- The Other Oeuvre
- The Partially Examined Life
- The Space of Reasons
- The Splintered Mind
- The World According to Dirk G.
- Think Tonk
- Thomas Illustration
- Thoughts, Arguments and Rants
- Trusting in Buddha
- Truth isn't in one, is in many dreams
- Unstrange Mind
- virtual philosopher
- Visual Notations
- VITRINART
- Wait! I Have a Blog?!
- WISF
- wo's weblog

- Aesthetica
- Birthday V
- Caitlin Bellah
- E P I C O T Y L E
- Eric Shaeffer Photos
- Humans of New York
- It's Pretty Far
- Jennifer Balkan
- Karen Hollingsworth
- Katelyn Alain
- Melanie Vote
- Nancy Cohen
- Nasa daily picture
- Non-humans of New York
- OptikNerve
- Philos-List
- Philosophers' Carnival
- Rachael Wren
- SEP
- Sandi Slone
- Scientific Photographers
- Singing the Blues
- Sophia Hewson
- Sylvia Ji
- The First
- The Lodge
- The Storytellers
- This Resonance of Intangible Desire
- WAITING FOR LIGHTNING
- Work in progress
- girls on paper
- ishabluebell
- kittenwar
- laik too
- lula mari
- philpapers
- pinkpurple
- trees

- April 2007 (7)
- May 2007 (27)
- June 2007 (17)
- July 2007 (7)
- August 2007 (17)
- September 2007 (18)
- October 2007 (23)
- November 2007 (8)
- December 2007 (8)
- January 2008 (13)
- February 2008 (8)
- March 2008 (3)
- April 2008 (4)
- May 2008 (5)
- June 2008 (6)
- July 2008 (7)
- August 2008 (3)
- September 2008 (7)
- October 2008 (3)
- November 2008 (9)
- December 2008 (3)
- January 2009 (9)
- March 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (1)
- October 2009 (2)
- December 2009 (2)
- January 2010 (3)
- February 2010 (2)
- March 2010 (2)
- April 2010 (1)
- May 2010 (1)
- September 2010 (7)
- October 2010 (8)
- November 2010 (9)
- December 2010 (10)
- January 2011 (3)
- February 2011 (4)
- March 2011 (5)
- April 2011 (6)
- June 2011 (1)
- July 2011 (2)
- January 2012 (1)
- October 2012 (4)
- December 2012 (4)
- May 2013 (1)
- July 2013 (2)
- November 2013 (3)
- February 2014 (4)
- May 2014 (1)
- August 2015 (2)
- May 2016 (2)
- September 2016 (1)
- October 2016 (1)
- December 2016 (1)
- February 2017 (2)

## 3 comments:

That's a really clever idea.

I skimmed through the first half or so, and so if the answer to my worry is in the second half, I apologize.

As a probabilist, I am very much worried about conditioning on zero-probability events. One easily get in trouble that way.

However, I can do better than just this dire warning of "getting in trouble". Instead I can offer a challenge:

Explain what you mean by these conditional probabilities.You take a single case objective propensity view of probability. That is all fine and good for single cases. But that doesn't yield an account of enough conditional probabilities. One can use objective propensities to understand

someconditional probabilities, namely those where one is conditioning on initial conditions. But here you're not conditioning on initial conditions but on outcomes. And one can use non-conditional probabilities to define conditional probabilities when one is conditioning on an event of non-zero probability, but here you're conditioning on zero-probability events.Now, it is true that mathematicians do sometimes condition on events of zero probability. Thus, we can sometimes make sense of P(E|A=x) where E is an event, x is a constant and A is a random variable, even if P(A=x)=0. But this must be done carefully, using the Radom-Nikodym Theorem. And the Radom-Nikodym Theorem only yields a function that is unique

up to sets of probability zero. In other words, we can sometimes define the function f(x)=P(E|A=x), but the function f will not be unique--any other function that differs from f only on sets of probability zero will also do the job. Consequently, this isn't really a good definition of P(E|A=x) for any particular value of x, but only a good definition of a class of functions each of which "counts as" P(E|A=x). But for your purposes you need a good definition of P(E|A=x) for a particular value of x.Many thanks, but I don't understand why conditioning on 0-probability events

should bea problem. My conditional probabilities arise from many single-case propensities, the restriction being to certain possible outcomes as you say. But the restrictions are justified by there being realistic scenarios involving sufficiently similar restrictions.One guy may get an Integer, and if he does he wonders whether the other guy's Integer, if there is one, is likely to be bigger. He wonders nothing otherwise; but the event is possible, so he may so wonder. And then he is wondering about one of these conditional probabilities. In such a possible world, why not? Maybe there is no such numerical probability, or maybe there is.

But there won't be one and not one, if this world is possible. So I don't see why my argument needs a better definition than that (intuitive one). E.g. I don't assume that there

arenumerical probabilities, and I argue for implausibility not impossibility. I agree that it would be difficult to get a stronger result. Maybe I'd have to develop my own theory of probability, but then my resulting contradiction would just refute my own theory. But it may be a hopeful sign (for me) that the standard theory does encounter difficulties in this area....or how about this analogy: Objectively fair coin-tosses might arise from the aggregate of the underlying indeterminism at the atomic level. A great many outcomes are possible, most of them not involving coins being tossed at all. So to say that were there 2 of them, the chances of 2 heads would be 25% is to condition on unlikely outcomes. But intuitively it would not matter how unlikely fair coin-tosses were, so long as they were independent, and the underlying probabilities were single-case propensities.

Post a Comment