A Freeper Research Project: Combinatorics, Probability Theory, and the Observer Problem

Self plus all interested Freepers | 30 June 06 | betty boop and Alamo-Girl

[betty boop]

Often on science threads we encounter issues of statistics, probability theory -- and the observer problem. We thought it might be interesting and helpful to delve into these subject areas here, and to invite our fellow Freepers to share their knowledge and expertise.

Thanks in advance to all participants!

[betty boop]

Oooooopppsss! Footnote 7 got lost somehow. So let me give it to you here:

⁷ Weighting data is a statistical technique. For details, please see http://npts.ornl.gov/npts/1995/courseware/Useable_Nav3_7_27.html]

[Red Badger]

If a tree falls in the forest what is the probability that a eco-whacko will be in it?...........

[betty boop]

"Observer problem" ping here, just in case you have an interest!

[Al Gator]

I work with this stuff every day.


So what's the point of the article?

[betty boop]

I work with this stuff every day.

So what's the point of the article?

Not everybody does work with this stuff everyday, Al Gator. We write for those people. If there's nothing here for you, just pass it by.

[Al Gator]

Oh I will, but I still don't see how this stuff is NEWS AND ACTIVISM!

Should be in general chat or something.

[jamaksin]

For those occurences when an infinite probability space is encountered (i.e., not a finite space) ... say, such as considering when a "fair" coin is tossed and lands on its edge ... P(head)+P(tail)+P(edge)=1 ... the number of tosses being countably infinite (Cantor's definition) ...

Multiple by zero and then add the answer.

[JCEccles]

It appears that both approaches are equally “subjective” in the final analysis: The “observer problem” — the problem of a subject intending an object — seemingly cannot be obviated under any experimental conditions. Yet it seems Bayesians are not so much “subjectivist” as empiricist in their approach to statistical theory. In comparison, we might say the Frequentist approach is formalist: It thinks the observer can be “left out.” As if the origin of the formalism did not have a human mind — an “observer” — to “think it into existence” in the first place.

The entire essay is compellingly and clearly written, and I intend to return to it for additional study. But the above-comment is especially trenchant and insightful, I think. The observer effect is not trivial. It is real. It has profound effect. But it lies obscured within a lacuna inherent in the scientific method, so it is trivialized or simply denied.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for posting this! I'll be checking in and commenting now and again.

[betty boop]

The observer effect is not trivial. It is real. It has profound effect. But it lies obscured within a lacuna inherent in the scientific method, so it is trivialized or simply denied.

Thanks for your kind words JCEccles. I certainly agree with your remarks, above. I'm looking forward to hearing from you again!

Thanks so much for writing!

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL!

[Alamo-Girl]

Seems to me that the observer problem - which is particularly noticeable in probability theory - leads to significant misunderstanding in the science debates, especially around here. This essay is a sincere effort to improve our dialogue.

Please help us unravel the issue by sharing your insights, Al Gator!

[Sopater]

Bump for later...

[Alamo-Girl]

Should be in general chat or something.

A lot of science threads end up in chat (or worse, many end up in the smoky backroom). But I believe this one is appropriate for the main forum because it is a "Freeper Research Project" and a legitimate Freeper essay.

[Alamo-Girl]

Multiple by zero and then add the answer.

Could you explain this a bit?

[hosepipe]

[ Combinatorics, Probability Theory, and the Observer Problem ]

I'm in...
How do we interface this thought into the mix?...

"The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense" - Tom Clancy

The Observer is prone to observe things that make sense or to make sense of things that don't seem to make sense by formulae.... Mathematics/physics could be a parlor game for observers.. until those observers get added to them more "dimension" to observe with.. You know like the Bible says..

Could be a thoughtful discourse here..

[Alamo-Girl]

The observer effect is not trivial. It is real. It has profound effect. But it lies obscured within a lacuna inherent in the scientific method, so it is trivialized or simply denied.

Very well said. Very true. Thank you, JCEccles!

[Alamo-Girl]

"The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense" - Tom Clancy

LOLOL! But also very true.

The Observer is prone to observe things that make sense or to make sense of things that don't seem to make sense by formulae...

Indeed. That is part of what we need to explore.

[Hegemony Cricket]

Corollary: If a French soldier walks on to a battlefield, and there is no one to surrender to, does he still suffer a horrible defeat?