The name for the point where a probability changes

As in the title, the name for the point where a probability changes please.This is an exceedingly simple question, but sometimes the simple can be less obvious so I will clarify.First the chance of something is 1/4, then later it is 1/3, in between the chance changed, the point where this chance changed is called ......?I use the word decision, or determination. Resolution may be another word in use. I'd like to know the common name that is in use within science for that point, if there is one.
-----------Well I asked this for a while now already and still no answer.... This topic deserves it's own thread certainly. That's because if there is no name it follows that:- scientists are not much aware of changing probabilities (of course)
- every subject which has changing probabilities as an element would tend to be covered incorrectly, or not at all by sciencesubjects include:
- any event which has several possible outcomes
- human intelligence understood as having the essential requirement the ability to make decisions
- the origin of the universe, because it is an "uncaused cause"
- the origin of anything in terms of the probability of it coming to be (which is the most common use of origin, more common as the "what came before" descent with modification use of origins)Perhaps a good example to find out the name in use for changing probabilities is to investigate Gould's contention, that if time were wound back, evolution might have gone differently. For instance he says, no big comet might have hit the earth, and the dinosaurs would have developed into different species, in stead of going extinct. So what Gould is saying is that at some point in time there was a probability of dinosaurs evolving into other species. At a later point this probability was negated, they went extinct. What does Gould call this point, or phase, in time in which the probability of the dinosaurs evolving changed?I feel this argument, if it holds, is very strong indeed, for creationism. A science without a name for "change in probability" is like a science without the words "cause and effect". Creationism is then the right and proper protector of knowledge about "changes in probability", against an ignorant form of science. Creationism the protector of knowledge about decision, choice, intelligence, final judgement, free will, emotion, and origins in it's most true sense. The sense in which there is no infinite regression back to other causes. The quite apparent links of science to predeterminist ideologies, becomes all the more damning, when it is understood that current science is strongly prejudicial to ignore changes in probablities. So all the criticism comes together IMO, and the result is that for as far as the debate goes, evolutionists are on the wrong side of things, and creationists are on the right side of things.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Well it is probably called cheating since in order for the chance to go from 1 in 4 to 1 in 3 the number of options for the way an event can unfold have been altered.

It could be that one of the possibilities has been resolved as a no-gothat would leave 1 of the 3 remaining as possibilities.alternatively a new possibility can be derived from new information that had not been considered before, and that could take it from 1 in 4 to 1 in 5.what this shows is that the original calculation of the probabilities was in error: it had not properly modeled the {real} situation.probability is just a mathematical model. it is not real, and it does not force any of the probabilities to occur (or not).{{corrected typo in first word}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-07-2005 08:03 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

That's very funny, one to call changing probabilities cheating, the other to say probabilities aren't real. This just more goes to substantiate my argument.Do any of you really believe in day to day life, that probabilities don't change, that probabilities aren't real? Aren't you at all aware of making decisions which change the probability of something? I think I can exclude the possibility that you never speak as though you make a decision which changes the probability of something, because it is so deeply ingrained in common knowledge. But do you believe in your own words, when you say you made a decision which makes something more likely to happen?I guess you can say that probabilities aren't real, in the same way that you can say causes aren't real. As mentioned many times before, causes are in the past, and so you can say the past is not real, because common knowledge says only the present is real. Probabilities are in the future and so they aren't real either in the same way, because only the present is real, it is said. In any case the past and the future seem to have some relevancy to the present.It seems what you mean to say is that probabilities aren't real because they aren't causes, or because they are really causes in disguise.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

the calculation of probabilities is not real. and the probabilites themselves are not real objects: they are a methematical construction to model the world. they have no effect on what happens, whether you calculate them out to 10 decimals or ignore them.seriously, do you calculate the probability of everything you do before doing it? Can You?no. you cannot calculate the probabilities unless you know the system adequately enough to know what all the possible options are. this is, of course where all those bogus probability calculations get so funny: they cannot know how many other alternatives there are.get real yourself.This message has been edited by RAZD, 12-27-2004 05:33 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Absolutely they don't change. Our knowledge of the situation may change, our best estimate of what the probability is may change, but the probabilities themselves only change when the event being assessed either occurs or fails to occur, in which case the probability changes to one or zero respectively. In QM this is called "collapse of the wave function".

I think you are just confusing yourself by your wordusage. Sure a probability can never effect anything, because only causes have effects. Probabilities do however, have an outcome, which constitutes a reality.What you say, goes to argue that science is right not to have a name for where a probability changes, because there are no such thing as probabilities even, let alone changes in them.I'm not so sure now what to do now. Argue to you that there actually are changes in probabilities, or leave your opinion standing as evidence that scientists ignore changing probabilities.You don't ignore changing probabilities in daily life, that would be impossible, given common knowledge relies on it so much. Only in a science context do you deny it.I don't see much use in trying to convince you. What use is there to try to convince someone that a speck of dust might have ended up in a different place then it is? I have no hope that reasonability affects absolute predeterminism.I think it better to leave your opinion standing as evidence that science ignores changes in probabilities.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Oh so you believe that probabilities are real, but don't change. It's certainly very amazing to talk to people who don't believe in chaning probabilities.So in the USA elections, there was a continuous set probability of Kerry, or Bush winning. This probability didn't change at all ever, for either of them, except when Bush actually won the election, then it went to 1 for bush, and zero for Kerry.Well that still leaves this point of the actual winning of the election as a change in probality, a change to 1 and 0 respectively. Please give the name for it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The event where probabilities resolve into actual results (in the case of an election it's the counting of the votes) is often called the 'realization' of the probability.Generally you describe it as the event or process that changes a possibility into an outcome.

Yes I think that's the right word for how a change in probability is referred to in science. I checked it on the web, and it seems consistent with common knowledge usage of changes in probabilities.I would like to see though, a reference where a realization is modelled, and how this realization is referred to after the fact.For example. The americans "realised" president Bush. President bush caused the terrorists to run and hide.Well maybe this example is not very clear. The point is to have a realization (elections) which sets a cause (bush presidency) which has the effects (terrorists run and hide).I would like to see if there is logic / wordusage like that within science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think I will treasure your post as one of the best examples I've seen of the double-talk dance about an issue without knowing how to address it.clearly you do not understand that {all any probability is made up of} is a mathematical model of the {reality system}. there is no objective reality to probability: it is only an intellectual concept.you can calculate the probability of a coin toss at 50\50 per side, but when you toss the coin you only get one result, and the calculation of the probability of one side or the other has no effect on what side turns up. this is obvious when you toss it again and again: each toss is totally independent of any and all previous tosses -- even if you toss 500 tosses that all end up on the same side the next toss is unaffected.calculation of the probability of something that has already occured is easy to mistake for a measure of reality as well: the probability is 1 - it happened. any other calculation is irrelevant, because there is no way the occurrance can "un-occur"there is also a misunderstanding in {Quantum Mechanics \ Quantum Theory} in dealing with the {uncertainty principle and subatomic particles} -- all the possibilities occur simultaneously until the act of observation alters the system and forces one to be realized. it is not probabilities that occur before that, it is simulaneous co-existence (and out lack of understanding of that).enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Syamsu Of course,probabilities change but only if the initial conditions change before the event occurs,not after the fact.

That's very funny again RAZD. In looking for "realization" I came across an article that comments on this prejudice that is ingrained in science, that scientists who have to use probability for their field are looked down on by other scientists, that even when they use it they deny that there actually was more then one possible outcome.Why you choose to remain to be ignorant, while you have all this knowledge about probability, and realization, right there in the common language you use daily, is something perplexing. I can just ask you to argue against yourself, argue your common knowledge against your scientific knowledge.It seems rather then recognizing probabilities, you prefer to recognize multiple universes even, when you say that it is really about things existing simultaneously. Do the dinosaurs also simultaneously evolve into other species, while also going extinct? Or only when the dinosaurs observed each other did one or the other occur? That makes no sense, that seems very much like someone trying to hang on to a cause and effect idea at all cost.There you go again talking about probabilities having effects, while I already explained to you, and while you already know by common language, that causes have effects, and probabilities have outcomes.Can I summarize your "logic" as saying probabilities don't have an effect, so they don't exist? Doesn't that show the mistake in all the arguments you reference in a nutshell? Probabilities exist in the future of course, just as causes can be said to exist in the past. they exist.For something that has already occurred, you can make a calculation previous to that point in time, and calculate the probability of it occurring from there. The fact that it did occur does obviously not mean that it always had a probability of 1 of occurring, that would be obviously wrong.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

And so conditions change continuously due to probabilities being realized continuousy. That is what happens during the run-up to the vote. Some of those probabilities being realized having a very large influence, on the probability of who wins.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu