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.

Your theory assumes knowledge that we do not possess, and does not recognize the distinction between future events (which are indeterminate) and past events (which are not). Probability involves a wave function, which, upon measurement being taken (e.g. a die being thrown), collapses into a single state.

Probabilities express meaningful things about events of which we have limited predictive ability, and allow prediction of aggregate results, which your theory would not.

You fail to understand this theory. You talk about future events being indeterminate and past events which are not indeterminate. Please ponder on your definition of “indeterminate”. Is the event indeterminate because you, as a being, do not know the result? Or is it because current limited knowledge of the world prevents us from knowing the result? “Indeterminate” is a human label. It has no value.

The idea of a wave function for probability does not apply here. It has no relation to what this theory talks about. You should probably ask why probability is a wave function. I can provide probability in a new representation, and it has no bearing on this theory. You have totally missed the point.

My theory seeks not to allow for the prediction of aggregate results. It only seeks to explain the logic behind the current probability concept.

In short, you have missed the point entirely.

However, I do little justice to you. You are probably referring to the applicability of probability. This is simply so because probability relies on statistically stable knowledge of events. That is why probability has a predictive nature. But it is false because it is not foolproof. For example, using statistical evidence, we can assume that throwing a coin will result in only 1 of 2 events. One can throw it once, or a googol times, and that assumption may be true. But it would be false to turn that probability into a law as it is possible that other events may occur, such as the coin landing on its edge. Thus, using statistical evidence stretching the whole universe and time immemorial, we can assume the law of gravity to be true, because the phenomenon of gravity is consistent everywhere and all the time. But should one day the phenomenon of gravity fail to appear, science would fail because it fails to consider the possibility of an atypical event occuring because that atypical event has no statistical support. It, in fact, has never happened in our limited knowledge of the world. Science, as it seems, is currently built on assumption. Statistically supported assumptions specifically, to avoid misinterpretation.

This theory simply puts that only one event will occur, and all others will not. If there must be a resulting event, then using induction, one can conclude that this event has been determined before it happens. Thus the probability of that event happening will be 1, as no other event will occur.

There is another thread with some questions on this theory answered.
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=155789

No, I just fail to agree with it. :smiley: I find that’s a fairly common confusion.

More precisely, because I CANNOT know the result. If the result can be known, then the event is determined even if I am ignorant of the predictable outcome; if the result cannot be known, then the event is not determined.

No, not “current limited knowledge,” but rather, “the laws of the universe that REQUIRE, now and forever, that knowledge be limited.”

Every single word you have posted is also a human label. Do those have no value as well?

Well, that’s one thing you’ve got right, at least. :unamused: Perhaps there’s hope.

If there is a nonzero probability that the model does not account for, this is an indictment of the model, not of the concept of probability which underlies it. A more complete model would also take account of the chance for the coin to land on its edge, but it would still be statistical in nature.

It is in fact built on four assumptions:

  1. That the laws of the universe are everywhere constant.
  2. That human perception allied with reason, and subject to proper controls, is capable of discovering those laws.
  3. That the scientific method (observation leading to hypothesis tested by further observation, using controlled experiment and mathematical modeling where possible) is the best way to use perception and reason for that purpose.
  4. That to know everything is impossible, so that all knowledge must be held tentatively and absolute certainty is always unjustified.

That does not follow. The only thing that follows is that the event is determined after the fact, not before it happens.

I wish you would give a little more effort in trying to understand this theory because your arguments are not new or relevant, and any attempt on my part to try to clarify would simply result in the repeating of my earlier post, which is rather redundant. Try reading a bit deeper into my earlier post.

Reykdal, you keep saying I don’t understand what you are saying, which is, quite frankly, insulting – hence the flippant tone of my last. I don’t enjoy being insulted. And really, your idea isn’t all that complicated or hard to understand. Yes, I understand that my objections to it aren’t new. Do they have to be? Have any of them ever been satisfactorily answered?

Here, let me paraphrase you.

In all events which we call indeterminate and model using statistics, what is described is an event which, upon unfolding, can have only a single outcome. Thus, what we describe as having N possible outcomes X, where the probability of each event is such that P[X(1)] + P[X(2)] + . . . + P[X(N)] =1, actually has only one possible outcome, X(A), such that P[X(A)] = 1 and the probability of all other events on the distribution is zero.

That’s my understanding of what you’re saying. What have I failed to understand?

Reykdal, what you are talking about is raw determinism, not probability.
Yes, there is no way that something is going to do anything other than what it is about to do.
No, that is not probability. Probability does not apply to the past, only the future. Hold some dice in your hand and tell me what they are going to show before you roll them. That’s where probability comes in. You are picking your answers after you roll them. Navigator has not misunderstood you. You have misunderstood him bacause you have misdefined ‘probability’.

Using induction, one can conclude that if there will be a result for the throwing of a die, then that result has already been determined before it has been thrown. Then logically it follows that if the result has been determined, probability for the event that occurs will be 1 as no other event will occur, regardless of statistical irrelevance.

In simpler terms, I mean that if a conclusion is going to be reached, that conclusion will be reached regardless of the observer’s opinions or understanding. I honestly do not know how to express simpler than this. Forgive my incompetence.

:astonished: Holy crap the law of large numbers and the central limit theorem just blew up today on this forum!

I’m sure the casinos will cease operations tommorrow in light of this highly illuminating view on the objective reality that they have experienced for mutliple decades.

This is the best part really. Systems cannot make any future predictions about what will happen, it’s all pre-programmed. How the hell does anything learn in your warped universe?
When I learned how to ride a bicycle I observed that certain things that I did kept me upright and proper and able to continue riding the bike without failing in pile on the ground. Are you suggesting that everytime I get on my bike or get in a car to drive I dismiss all past knowledge and just cruise on down the road, because hey if I’m gonna crash it’s simply going to happen anyway?

Apart from the language and tone of your posts, I have not much to comment simply because your conclusions are too misled. Honestly, you are just destroying the credibility of this forum as a constructive area for the intellect, for me and for others.

I challenged your absurd notion of destroying the law of large numbers and the central limit theorem with conviction, I’m guilty of having math heroes. Can you show us where mathmatically these central tenets to probability theory go into the abyss?

There is no intent of tone in this message. Refute or disprove these well established constructs and perhaps something unimaginably beautiful or constructive can happen. I’m admittely math inclined, if your arguement is a meta physical one it’s likely lost on my brain.