[HN Gopher] The World is Built on Probability (1984) ___________________________________________________________________ The World is Built on Probability (1984) Author : the-mitr Score : 217 points Date : 2023-05-14 12:07 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (archive.org) (TXT) w3m dump (archive.org) | FollowingTheDao wrote: | My Hypothesis: All matter exists in a sphere of probability. Our | brains are masters of computing probabilities to tell us the most | likely location for any object. It is not that we collapse the | wave form, but that our brain ignores the wave form for our | convenience. | | Light is always a wave, never a particle. And a wave is just a | probability. | Eupraxias wrote: | We need to connect - we are of the same mind. How do we do | that? I have composed a 'book' on the topic and would love your | thoughts. | FollowingTheDao wrote: | awesome! | | followingdao@protonmail.com | pharmakom wrote: | Our brains would then exist in a state of probability too. | FollowingTheDao wrote: | Yes, they do. But our minds do not. The brain creates the | mind, the ego, and this is another collapse of a wave form. | pharmakom wrote: | so the brain creates the mind but it does not fully | determine the mind? | | why does the mind only experience one of the brains | collapsed states? | imdoor wrote: | Do you account for the fact that probability distributions can | have multiple peaks with equal probability? If multiple brains | were involved, they'd somehow have to coordinate on what they | deem the most likely outcome. | FollowingTheDao wrote: | Our brains all use the program, but we can see when some of | these programs have a glitch. Take some LSD and you will see | what I mean. | | > probability distributions can have multiple peaks with | equal probability? | | I think I know where you are going, but can you be more clear | so I do not confuse things with my assumptions? | imdoor wrote: | Say there is a quantum system - a particle or something - | that has an equal probability to collapse in either of two | classical states if measured. Say there are two scientists | in a laboratory who perform a measurement on that system. | If your hypothesis is true, how do they agree on what they | perceive when looking at the result of the measurement? | Each brain would have to make an arbitrary decision on | which of the two equally likely outcomes to perceive. | FollowingTheDao wrote: | How do all calculators know that 2+2=4? | | But our mental system is not as perfect. Because a person | with schizophrenia or someone on LSD they surely not see | the same things we do. | mistermann wrote: | Well, consider some of the political disagreements we've | had in the last decade or so, we have ample evidence that | two different people can look at the exact same thing and | arrive at opposite conclusions. | andrewgleave wrote: | David Deutsch's "Physics Without Probability" covers the history | of probability, it's legitimate and misconceived uses and | concludes that according to MWI there is no such thing in reality | - it's basically that probabilities correspond to how measures of | the multiverse proportion themselves as differentiation occurs. | | I watched it a few years ago so may be misremembering bits but I | think that is the gist... | | Worth a watch especially if you balk at this idea just to to see | a strong counter argument. | | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc&t=0s | | Edit: link | hgsgm wrote: | There is no contradiction. In Many Worlds Interprepation, Each | World (and mostly importantly, with relative weight = 1, the | World I am in right now) is built on probabilities. | nico wrote: | Cool to see a conversation-style section | | 1980s AI-chat emulation technology: just print the chat history | on a book | | But seriously, conversation style feels a lot more natural | sometimes than just reading a wall of text and trying to decipher | its meaning | ouija wrote: | Seems like a lot of effort went into typesetting this, wow! | | I can recommend "Calculus: Basic Concepts for High Schools" by | the same author (L.V. Tarasov) to anybody unfamiliar with | calculus: | https://archive.org/details/TarasovCalculus/page/n1/mode/2up. | It's written as a dialogue between author and reader. | tharkun__ wrote: | This seems to have the hallmarks of LaTeX, meaning: not as much | time sunk into "typesetting" as you might think ;) | hgsgm wrote: | It's not polite to accuse people of not reading the article, | but | | > This completely digital version typeset in using TEX with | EB Garamond font by DAMITR MAZANAV damitr@proton.me | | > Released on the web by http://mirtitles.org in 2023. | | > Access the BTEX project files | http://gitlab.com/mirtitles/twibop | gjvc wrote: | Needs LuaTeX to create. I look forward to learning some TeX | typesetting tricks from this. | a_w wrote: | https://mirtitles.org/2018/09/04/calculus-basic-concepts-for... | | https://archive.org/details/LevTarasovCalculusBasicConceptsF... | FollowingTheDao wrote: | Learning calculus in high school made me question everything. | You can never measure anything, never mind the area of a circe | using calculus. It will only ever be a "good enough" | measurement. | | There is a point where all of you will finally come to | appreciate the limits of rationalism and materialism and let go | a bit more. | zelphirkalt wrote: | It is not really about measuring things, but about reaching a | definitive answer given some assumptions. Sometimes our | notation of numbers get in the way of writing things shortly | (instead of infinite decimal places), other times we can use | a fraction and be exact on the paper we write on. | FollowingTheDao wrote: | If you can infinitely divide a ruler, you can measure | nothing. | | we only stop because it's convenient to stop. But that | doesn't make the size of anything have any specific size | other than where we stop measuring it. | hgsgm wrote: | You seem to have misunderstood the essence of calculus. | Calculus provides efficient, high quality estimates for messy | real world phenomena. | | Calculus put a man on the moon and a camera next to Pluto. | FollowingTheDao wrote: | > Calculus provides efficient, high quality estimates for | messy real world phenomena. | | Can it love? | | > Calculus put a man on the moon and a camera next to | Pluto. | | I am not saying the illusion is not useful, but all the | things that come out of it are also inside the illusion. | | What if Pluto is not as far away as we actually _think_ it | is? | bmacho wrote: | > What if Pluto is not as far away as we actually think | it is? | | What if, what if.. um.. nothing, really? Our ships | continue to work for a while, (may be t=0), then they | won't, and we correct the models or the math. | hgsgm wrote: | You have moved deeply out of the realm of the scientific, | into pure imagination. What if squiglal butterplotz | mishric? | vronkskoodo wrote: | [flagged] | FollowingTheDao wrote: | It's an imagination where new discoveries are found. | | The idea of distance being a human construct is not a new | idea and may be the underpinnings of spooky action at a | distance. | peteradio wrote: | Generally we think things are far away when it takes a | longer time to get to them. We have some reasonable | assurance that the speed of light is immutable and so we | can measure the distance in our frame of reference by | bouncing light off of Pluto. Are you nerd sniping sir? | FollowingTheDao wrote: | I am making the distinction of what we perceive to be | reality to actual reality. | | Distance is a human concept. The moment we stop thinking | distance does not exist. It may be a limitation that we | perceive distance as something to be overcome through | rocket ships and not through other methods. | | Time is also in the same category. If you want to read a | good book on the topic read "the end of Time quote by | Jason Barbour. | papandada wrote: | I have thought it was interesting that, Christians | believe, God became human and of all the things in the | universe he could choose to teach about, apparently more | than anything it is all about love (of a particular kind, | actually). | NateEag wrote: | I think OP understands that calculus is an enormously | powerful tool. | | I think the OP's point is that much like the Newtonian | physics that paired with calculus to put a man on the moon, | calculus is a pragmatically magnificent tool that doesn't | yield exactly correct or perfectly accurate answers for | many questions. Just "enough accuracy for the problem | you're solving," in some very real senses. | peteradio wrote: | Huh, what are we talking about here? Calculus does give | exact results. What questions are we talking about? | Fundamentally statistical questions are going to have | inherent uncertainties, its got nothing to do with | Calculus. | FollowingTheDao wrote: | Calculus make use of the fundamental notions of | convergence of infinite sequences and infinite series to | a well-defined limit. | | What you are calling an exact result is only a limit | function. All "things" will measure infinitely. | peteradio wrote: | Still not understanding what your issue is with calculus. | I think so far you only have a problem with its outcomes | when you feed it garbage. We expect to see "Calculus" | diverge when integrating near the lattice spacing. I | don't think we wholly disagree but I am doubtful you are | going to make headway fighting against calculus. | the-mitr wrote: | Thanks for linking Calculus book. | | His book on school physics also use the dialogue approach: | | Questions and Answers in School Physics (Dialogues between | students and teacher) | | https://archive.org/details/questions-and-answers-in-school-... | | While other two books use dialogues intermittently as in the | probability book | | Basics Concepts of Quantum Mechanics | | https://archive.org/details/tarasov-basic-concepts-of-quantu... | | This Amazingly Symmetrical World | | https://archive.org/details/TarasovThisAmazinglySymmetricalW... | | (I am the curator/maintainer of the mirtitles.org blog and the | typesetter of the books) | KRAKRISMOTT wrote: | No mention of Metropolis-Hastings :( | | It's the biggest, baddest, hammer in probabilistic machine | learning. | 1MachineElf wrote: | I've been meaning to read up on Frank Ramsey, an early 20th | century philosopher, mathematician, and economist, who first | postulated that people's actions are determined by the balance | between their expectations and their desires. A world built on | probability would be up his alley, I imagine. | oh_sigh wrote: | Ramsey is one of those great what-ifs in my mind - just seeing | his intellectual output and knowing he died at 26...what would | he have given us if he lived a normal life span? | ark4579 wrote: | hmm probably | throwme_123 wrote: | HMMs are probabilistic models, yes. | contravariant wrote: | Probability theory works, with 100% chance even. Which | annoyingly isn't the same as _always_. | bmacho wrote: | What is funny thought, that 0% chance events don't _can 't | happen_, but _must happen_. Like when you pick a point on a | line, or roll a dice infinitely many times. | quantum_state wrote: | The concept of probability is based on the concept of measure | in math => limitation in its description of things, e.g., the | probability for a real number in [0, 1) being an irrational | number is 1. | eli_gottlieb wrote: | Hold on, what measure over the unit interval assigns | probability 1 to the set of irrational numbers in the unit | interval? Do irrational numbers on their own even form a | proper measurable set? | omnicognate wrote: | Lebesgue measure [0]. I never did write part 2 and many | years have gone by with that blog languishing | unmaintained on free wordpress but I wrote a thing that | goes through the issues around this [1]. | | [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebesgue_measure | | [1] https://omnicognate.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/sigma- | algebras-... | contravariant wrote: | The irrationals are measurable for any measure that can | measure points, which is most of them. | hgsgm wrote: | Of course. [0,1] has measure 1. Rationals have measure 0. | Irrationals have measure 1-0=1 | | This question is _why_ measure theory exists. | foogazi wrote: | From the preface: Is the result of a dice roll truly random or | dependent on physics: angle, velocity, surface ? | EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: | Randomness is not absolute, but relative. For the one having | the computer powerful enough to compute how the dice will roll | and bounce, it is not random. For others, it is. That's why | people with computers are not allowed into casinos. | | In the world of online gambling, someone who knows the seed of | the RNG, game outcome is not random. For others, it is. Here | people with computers ARE allowed, because it's much harder to | break a cryptographic RNG than to calculate physical roulette | biases. | layer8 wrote: | I suggest acquainting yourself with quantum mechanics. | NeutralForest wrote: | The book looks absolutely beautiful | goatlover wrote: | The wavefunction is deterministic. If you take the MWI as the | most straight forward interpretation of the math, then the | universe if fundamentally deterministic. Probability on a physics | level would represent our ignorance of the other branches. | williamcotton wrote: | Simplicity of mathematical models at the expense of | falsification... who needs science, anyways? | layer8 wrote: | Or it would characterize the futures of the current branch. | golol wrote: | I don't think you can reason like this. As far as I | understodod, standard quantum mechanics does not make any | statement about how the measuring process and the collapse of | the wavefunvtion happens. So while the waveform evolves | deterministically, you can only ever apply this model when you | are in the position of performing measurements on some quantum | mechanical system. As I understand, Quantum mechanics is not | meant to also model you together with the experiment as a | wavefunction, because the act of you performing a measurement | does not have a definition in the form of the wavefunction | interacting with itself somehow. So without extensions to QM, | you should not reason with universal deterministic waveforms. | canjobear wrote: | > the act of you performing a measurement does not have a | definition in the form of the wavefunction interacting with | itself somehow | | Performing a measurement just means you become entangled with | the thing you're measuring. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence | jounker wrote: | What i remember from my PDE class was a lecture which involved | solving the wave equation for a particular bounded case and, | with a slight transformation, the professor showing that the | normal distribution was embedded in that solution. | kubanczyk wrote: | > then the universe if fundamentally deterministic | | s/universe/multiverse/ | | And a universe is fundamentally probabilistic. | [deleted] | anonymouskimmer wrote: | I read the preface and there are things I agree with and things I | find problematic depending on how the author goes about | explaining them. The major one of these last is the seeming | identity of probability with randomness. | | Statistics and probability are tools humans use to predict | _outcomes_ of the world, they are not necessarily accurate | reflections of the _mechanisms_ of the world. Maybe I 'm | strawmanning the author here, I don't know. I may read the full | book at some point but probably not yet. | | There may very well be a limit where events are random (such as | particle decay), but surely even fully determined events can have | probabilistic outcomes, when aggregated. Like say you have 4 | beads, 3 black and 1 white. And you non-blindly align all | combinations of three beads. You'll have four combinations, three | of which contain a white bead. So the probabilistic odds of any | one combination of three beads containing a white bead is 75%. If | a person picks three beads based on preference, another person | can say that there's a 75% chance that those three beads will | contain a white bead, iterated over enough picks. But the actual | picking for all picks is fully determined by the current | preference of the person picking the three beads. | DiogenesKynikos wrote: | The book discusses the two sources of randomness early on: | unknown information and true randomness. It even identifies | Democritus and Epicurus as the philosophers who first | identified these sources of randomness. | anonymouskimmer wrote: | Thank you. I look forward to reading it now. | cuttothechase wrote: | MIR publishers (Moscow) published so many high quality books. | They even had the same elegant style, quality and accessibility | even in their translated works. | | The quality of paper used, the typesetting, the cloth binding and | in general the physical attributes of their books were a work of | art in itself. One can easily fall in love with the physical book | just for the way it was designed, let alone the content. | | The authors used in their translated works were equally | exceptional in their translation. | | I fondly remember reading their "Physics for entertainment" by | Perelman as a translated work in good old days and it actually | made me fall in love with the text book physics taught at the | school level. | | Given that this was an artifact when USSR made it even more | fascinating. Books were priced a trifle over the shipping cost as | they were likely subsidized heavily by the government. | | It is sad to see that they are no more. They were likely | defunded/dissolved when USSR broke up. | | Thank you MIR for lighting up my childhood. | | RIP. | | - https://mirtitles.org/ | | - https://mirtitles.org/2012/04/30/misha/ | cyberax wrote: | I wish someone would translate Fichtenholz's series on calculus | ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigorii_Fichtenholz ). They | are the best calculus textbook I've ever read, and they really | helped me to master calculus. | nextos wrote: | Dover still publishes lots of translated MIR books. | | Not the same printing quality, but still decent. | the-mitr wrote: | I am the curator/maintainer of the mirtitles.org blog and the | typesetter of the books. | | Thanks for the comment and putting in the perspective. The | project started with the idea of preserving this knowledge | about 15 years back. I grew up reading those books, but they | were nowhere to be found for others to read by the end of 90s. | The collection has been a collaborative effort with people from | across the globe contributing to it. Though it will take some | time (read years/decades), hopefully one day the collection | will have all the books published during the Soviet era. | layer8 wrote: | I find the blog format a bit confusing. Is there a complete | listing of the books somewhere? | eternalban wrote: | Just read _The tale about the snowflake that did not melt_. | Lovely little story. Thank you for sharing all this bounty! | themodelplumber wrote: | Since the linked book is at archive.org: I noticed that it is | part of the _Mir Titles_ collection there: | | https://archive.org/details/mir-titles | | IA's browser e-reader is pretty nice to use overall, and the | Mir titles seem to have been converted into various | downloadable formats as well, in addition to what I'm guessing | is the native PDF. | | Props to the collection maintainer. This brings back some | really good memories. | | Note--It seems like some additional Mir books, in various | states of curation, may be accessible via IA through search: | | https://archive.org/search?query=Yakov+Perelman | rajekas wrote: | Not about this book in particular, but I wanted to thank you for | creating this amazing resource. As someone who obsessively bought | every MIR title he could while growing up in Delhi, do take a | bow. | Pbhaskal wrote: | Cache works on probability. Superscalar processor works on | probability. L1, L2 ....cache works on probability ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-05-14 23:00 UTC)