rey's probability theory

Rey’s Probability Theory

Probability theory is flawed. Probability states that the likelihood of an event happening can be a fraction, i.e. 1/6. However, that is impossible. Probability can always only be 1 or 0.

For example, if we throw a dice 6 times, what is the probability of getting a “5” 6 times? Convention tells us that it would be 1/6 ^ 6 = 1/36.
However, when we actually throw the dice, we might get something like this:

1, 5, 3, 3, 2, 1

“5” only appeared once.

For the first throw, an event which has already happened, the probability of obtaining “1” is 1 and the probability of obtaining all other numbers is 0.

For the second throw, an event which has already happened, the probability of obtaining “5” is 1 and the probability of obtaining all other numbers is 0.

The same principle goes for the 4 other throws. The probability is always 1 for a particular event, and 0 for all other events, because the truth and reality is that only one event can and will occur, given time. Probability will never be a fraction, because only one event will occur, and all others will not.

If one goes to a roulette table in a casino, he might place his bet on “black”. He will think that the probability of him winning is ½. However, it must be remembered that every event is unique, that every spin of the roulette is unique, even if it has been spun 200 million times before. When the roulette is spun for that particular bet of that particular gambler, it must be remembered that only 1 event will ensue. The probability of that particular event happening is 1, while the probability of all others is 0. This is true because of the singularity of reality. The roulette table will only hit one number; only one event will occur, and for that event the probability of that happening is 1 and the probability of all other events is 0.

With the principle that only 1 event will ensue, we have our current history. The probability that WWII will happen, at the time before WWII happened, would have been 1, because WWII happened, as time will demonstrate. The probability that WWII will be called WWII, and not any other name, before WWII was named, is 1, as time will demonstrate. Only 1 event will occur, as time will prove. It is hard to tell whether WWIII will occur, but one thing can be ascertained: the probability is either 1 or 0. It is hard to tell if one will win the lottery, but the probability of winning is definitely either 1 or 0. Either he wins, or he does not. Time will provide the result.

This is only possible because every event is unique, because even experiments fall under the jurisdiction of uniqueness. Experimental models may ostensibly demonstrate a broad range of probable results, but it must be remembered that every set of result is unique, that the probability of every result that is obtained is 1. Even if identical results of experiments seem to be reproducible, every set of results is unique. Only 1 event will occur and the probability of that event happening will be 1.

The above principle shows that all events are fixed, so as to provide a singular past, with no possibility of an alternative. If events are fixed, it also shows that the future is fixed, that there is no alternative to the future events that have a probability of 1. The fact that there is only 1 past proves that there will only be 1 future. All this is true because of the singularity of reality.

If probability theory is flawed, how is it that the insurance companies stay afloat? They use probability theory to set their premiums. If probability theory was flawed they would fail; yet the insurance industry is quite profitable.

You’re falling into a bit of a fallacy here:

In probability, there’s a nice conjecture called Baye’s theorem:

P(A | B) = P(A and B) / P(B)

Which is a mathematical notation for :
The probability that event A happens given that event B has happened is the same probability that both events A and B happend, divided by the probability that event B happened.

For instance, you say :

"For the first throw, an event which has already happened, the probability of obtaining “1” is 1 and the probability of obtaining all other numbers is 0. "

Baye’s theorem has this:

A - a 1 gets rolled
B - a 1 gets rolled

If you tell me B happened (“hey dude, a 1 got rolled”) then ask what was the probability that a 1 was rolled, I’ll tell you 1, because I’m now very certain that a 1 was rolled, and there’s way any other number got rolled. In all you’re statements, you’re using hindsight to determine probability, and you’re just asking a bunch of

P(B|B) = ?

questions, which the answer is always 1.

Another example:
Say you told me that the number that was rolled (on a 6-sided die) was even.

what’s P(the number rolled was a 2)?

well:
A - a 2 was rolled
B - a even number was rolled

P(A|B) =
P( a 2 was rolled AND an even number was rolled) / P(an even number was rolled)

the only way to roll a 2 and an even number is if you rolled a 2. Rolling a 4 or 6 is even, but its not 2. So
P( a 2 was rolled AND an even number was rolled) = P( a 2 was rolled)

so I say P(A|B) = P( a 2 was rolled) / P(an even number was rolled)

= (1/6) / (1/2) = (2/6) = 1/3

This makes sence. If you say that an even number was rolled, either a 2 or 4 or 6 was rolled. The probability that a 2 was rolled = 1/3.

Check out Baye’s Theorem.

You misunderstand my post. When you say that the probability of a 2 being rolled was 1/3, you are assuming the probability of a 2 appearing to be 1/6 to be true, and the probability of an even number appearing to be 1/2 to be true.

My claim is debunking that kind of understanding. What my claim argues is that the probability of something happening may ostensibly be given by a number between 1 and 0 (meaning there are various possible events that can result, not just the one), but the conclusion should time pass would be that only one event will occur, and let us call that the TRUE event. What my claim argues is that on hindsight, one can prove that a distinct and TRUE event will occur, based on the fact there is only one real history, one reality. If there is only one unchangeable reality that has occured, then, using induction, one can conclude that only one reality will occur. This means that for all future events, or simply the future, there is only one possible outcome. There is only one reality that will occur. From this, one can also logically conclude that all events in the universe are pre-determined, such that only one possibility will arise (even if it seems that there are all sorts of possible events that can result) simply because there is only one event occuring ultimately.

This can apply to the rolling of a die (eg. The result of a die roll at 1:31:23.64pm PST on 6 April 2007AD by XX at 1234 Grand Boulevard, Vancouver BC is a 2.), or even a more insignificant event of scratching an itch (eg. XX used his right hand instead of his left, index finger instead of any other finger, at 10 degrees to the vertical instead of any other angle, for 2 seconds instead of any other amount of time, to scratch his chin, out of all the other places he can scratch, at 1:31:23.64pm PST on 6 April 2007AD at 1234 Grand Boulevard, Vancouver BC.) to a significant event (eg. The water level at Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco at 1:31:22.34pm PST on 6 April 2100AD would have risen by 2.45 feet as compared to the water level at 1:31:23.64pm PST on 6 April 2007AD.).

Hindsight is 20/20, which is understandably 1

All of your statements are from hindsight. While probability is a math of what could happen.

I flip a coin, T = tails, H = heads:

1.) T
2.) H

Okay, before the event occurs is when probability comes into play. What was the probability of flipping a T? Why, there was a 50% chance out of 2 options, which, in probability terms is 1/2.

After the event, probability has no place. What has happened, has happened (your ‘1’) and what has not happened has not happened (your ‘0s’). So, your understanding of what probability is turns out to be incorrect. What you’re arguing is observation, not chance.

Also, in your last post you speak of determinable events. It is possible to conclude on which side the coin will land if we know the amount of force against the edge of the coin being flipped, how much of the coin was on our finger, the air resistence, the change in gravity caused by the change in height of the coin, the change in gravity caused by the location of Earth in relation to the Sun and the Planets, and any other nearly insignificant factor. In this case, yes, there is no such thing as probability, only predictability. This is the equivalent to your itch scenario and the tide scenario, both of these are determinable based on either human desire or on physical occurrences.

But, probability is pragmatic when the forces are unkown. If one does not know all external force values which could jus as much affect one way or the other, it is practical to apply probability theory to determine the outcome.

Yes, after-the-fact we can know everything about a situation, but before it happens, all we have is probability. This is the basis of much of quantum theory, such as Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, which basically amounts to the ‘probability’ of knowing an objects position and speed before it occurs.

I understand what you are implying. You mean that prior to the event, probability exists, and after the event, probability does not apply. What I am saying simply is, if induction is true, then the event that occurs (which effectively means that other possible events do not occur) will have a probability of 1.

Current probability methods are practical simply because we do not have sufficient information. For example, if we flip a coin, and we know the various forces and directions involved in the event, then we can know for certain what side is going to face up. But if we do not have sufficient information, then we can apply the general assumption that it is going to land heads up or down, because it is statistically stable. Even if there is a possibility the coin is going to land on its edge, or it is going to splinter into half upon landing, or that the thrower accidentally misaims it and throws it into outer space where it does not land, or any other event that can occur, we ignore these events because such events are statistically insignificant, even if they CAN occur. This is why probability is flawed because it discounts such possibilities, simply because we have insufficient information.

What I am trying to state is that if an event occurs, then using induction we can state simply that before the event occured, we can be certain that only the one event will occur, and thus we can give that event the probability of happening of one, because all other possible events are false possibilities that will not occur, as the future will tell. Probability still exists because we have insufficient information. If we have more and more information, the TRUE event will have a greater and greater probability until with all relevant information the TRUE event will have a probability of 1. For example, before we flip a coin we use the statistically stable probability of getting a heads to be 1/2. But if we have more information such as the force of the flip and the angle, then we get a better probability. If we have more information such as external forces such as wind, or any other forces, we find we can better predict the outcome, and ultimately with all relevant information the probability of getting a heads will become a 1 or a 0.