Probability Is Subjectively Objective

AWESOME ARTICLE!

Here’s my summary:
Basically, probabilities are calculated based on the things you know (or think), and obviously not the things you don’t know. For example, if there was a six-sided dice in a box, and someone asked me what I think the probability of it is to have the 1 side facing up…well, the only information I have available is how many sides are on a dice. I don’t have the information about what side actually IS facing up. If I did, I would be able to say “100%” or “0%”. But I don’t have that information. All I know is that the 1 side is 1 out of the 6 available sides. So I can say that there’s a 1/6 chance of the dice being on 1.

Now, that probability must be understood to not exist in reality. The dice either is on 1, or it isn’t. The actual state of the universe isn’t “it’s probably not on 1,” probability only exists in minds, not in reality. The dice either is on 1, or it isn’t.

So, in this sense, probability is subjective. Hence the first part of the phrase “Subjectively Objective.” So how about the latter part? What about it is objective?

Each person has their own “priors” – their own experiences, their own assumptions, their own knowledge, their own beliefs, etc. These things are themselves “subjective” so to speak - they differ from person to person - but it can be said that it is objectively true that your priors are your priors. In other words, if you like vanilla, it’s your subjective opinion that vanilla is good, but it’s objectively true that it’s your subjective opinion that vanilla is good.

So, priors can themselves be subjective, but what your priors are can be said to be objectively your priors. Now, based on what all of your priors are, there is a single correct way to calculate probabilities. In a sense, an objectively correct way to calculate probabilities. For example, in the dice example, one of the priors of mine is that I know it’s a six-sided dice. It would be incorrect for me to take that prior and say “There’s a 1 in 1000 chance of 1 facing up.” The correct answer, based on my priors, is 1/6.

But of course the fact is that people have different priors. Maybe another person is asked the same question – which side is facing up – but this person has additional priors that I don’t have. For example, maybe he’s been asked this question by the same person 50 times already, and so far every time it’s been 1 facing up. Based on this, as well as other priors, he could be all means correctly say that the probability of it being 1 is 90% (I don’t really want to do any real calculations, I wouldn’t even know how to).

Now, does this make my 1/6 calculation incorrect? No! Different probabilities can be said to be correct based on different priors. Priors are subjective. Each person has their own. Some people have “better” priors than others, which will allow them to make better predictions, but that doesn’t mean other peoples’ calculations are incorrect. They’re correct based on the information available, they just had less information available.


So, hopefully I didn’t slaughter the actual message being relayed in the essay. I hope I didn’t misrepresent it too bad. Don’t take my word that that’s what it says. I could have totally misunderstood it. Have fun, and I hope I helped somebody learn something today.

Jerome Cardan ‘The Book of My Life’… best place to begin the study of probability theory. He was a damn good philosopher, inspired Nietzsche heavily (ecce homo is a emulation of that book- as a result, I can’t take Nietzsche’s autobiography too seriously having read both and knowing how closely he followed him). It was Cardan that developed it out of astrology into the basis we know it today.

For probability to work, it must be driven by a paradox machine. The dice example is a finite system with a assumption it can land on 1 of 6 sides. Oddities happen though, such as the dice landing on a crack on the joint of it’s side, or against the wall buttressed up, or disappear completely such as in the water or over a ledge or snatched up by a bird or cat. A probability of ‘fart or shart’ deals with both closed and open systems, and more closely exhibits the paradox machine in action… as much more of our cognition is evolved in the guessing game as the risks are so much higher and varied beyond the concerns of dice usually are. More of us is brought into it’s focus, the more variant oddities come into focus, and the more contradictions arise.

Most people when they deal with probabilities deal with closed systems and gamble with the open aspects for the dopamine rush. It’s the classic Basal Ganglia to Supplementary Motor Area interaction, the latter trying to control the former egotistically, while the thrill comes from the former overrunning the latter. We must realize we’re dealing with both open and closed systems of assessment- the closed systems are not as certain as we would like, and our open systems are not as deeply explored as we would wish. If it was otherwise, we wouldn’t concern ourselves with probability theories in the first place.

Too much serotonin and dopamine.

[If i give you a warning, you’ll think yourself ill-used. If I don’t, you’ll call me inconsistent the next time i do. There are plenty of places for comedy, CO - right here on ILP. Best you should find them.] - Faust

In quantum mechanics probability is objective.

Not according to some as-yet-standing interpretations. Maybe according to the one you read though, I’ll give that, and I’ll even grant that the interpretation you read may be by someone who knows what they’re talking about. But quantum mechanics itself isn’t yet fully understood, and the implications of the experiments are likewise not yet fully understood, and some interpretations of the implications are indeed completely deterministic.