I just learned about the work of De Finetti who apparently added the
notion of "subjective probability" to the extant body of Bayesian
probability at the time (1937). "Probability is not about the system
but rather about your knowledge of the system"...
From Wikipedia
*Bruno de Finetti*(13 June 1906 – 20 July 1985) was an
Italianprobabilist
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_probabilists>statistician
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistician>andactuary
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuary>, noted for the "operational
subjective" conception ofprobability
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability>. The classic exposition
of his distinctive theory is the 1937/"La prévision: ses lois
logiques, ses sources subjectives"/,^[1]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_de_Finetti#cite_note-1> which
discussed probability founded on the coherence of betting odds and
the consequences ofexchangeability
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchangeability>.
On 1/26/24 11:46 AM, glen wrote:
The concept of causality is so irritating. It's like some kind of
cafeteria style religion, where you pick and choose whatever attribute
you like and toss all the attributes you dislike. So Marcus'
identification of uncorrelated observations speaks directly to SteveS'
assignation of an independent trajectory mutation at each pin in the
game. The trajectory isn't random, but each turn in the trajectory is
random. Similar with the difference between determinism and
prestatability. Similar with the difference between causal chains
versus causal networks.
All this is simply to torque my arm out of place patting myself on the
back again. What matters is the *scope*, not some penultimate
reduction to some Grand Unified Theory/Philosophy of the world. Nobody
can say anything coherent without mentioning the scope of whatever it
was they said ... the language within which they said it, etc.
On 1/26/24 07:37, Steve Smith wrote:
I've only dropped a few Pachinko balls in my life, but I couldn't
help agonizing over the trajectory of each one, feeling as if at
every bounce they were at risk of "breaking bad" (or "good")...
since many here are at least part-time simulants (as Glen I believe
refers to himself), even the most aggressive attempts at introducing
"random" (noise, annealing, etc.) either degenerate to
"pseudo-random" or engage with a physical system (e.g. sample a
pixel-value from a webcam trained on a lava lamp) which of course is
deterministic if arbitrarily complex.
On 1/26/24 08:14, Marcus Daniels wrote:
One of the usual claims is that science couldn’t occur without
independent observations. I would co-opt Glen’s rhetoric here about
parallax. What’s need is largely uncorrelated observations.
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
