Probability Spaces

[Georredannea15]

You are talking about probability space. Please, for God's sake, read what this Wikipedia indicates. I am very well of what I am talking here.
In matter of fact; MWI is very much your interpretation in the entire discussion subconsciously.

And what does this have to do with what I said about the relationship between probability and time? I mean... I still don't have the answer to what's on my mind, but whatever.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Because we are discussing probability space and not probability. This is distinct. And in matter of fact, probability does not require time to exist. It's a measure of the likelihood of an event occurring. It exists as an abstract concept and can be applied to various scenarios and events regardless of time.

Altho in practical terms, it may be involved, but that's a different topic. Also, it's extremely derailing.

My point here is that for the possibility, a living and progressing plot, that is, a continuous story, is necessary. And for this, a linear time is required. And there is a continuity of time in a verse that is usually a manipulation of probability.

Also, from where is this definition comes? This is not definitely what “probability” originally means.

 

[Georredannea15]

Because we are discussing probability space and not probability. This is distinct. And in matter of fact, probability does not require time to exist. It's a measure of the likelihood of an event occurring. It exists as an abstract concept and can be applied to various scenarios and events regardless of time.

Then I guess I confused it with "probability"

Also, from where is this definition comes? This is not definitely what “probability” originally means.

That is, the possibility that a story or event is expected to happen, but still not entirely certain. And in order for this event to continue or happen, there has to be a "continuity", and this requires a time continuum. Well, I guess, That's what I had in mind, I hope I made myself clear.

 

[Theoretical]

Quantum mechanics would be irrelevant here, actually...

It's not in this case I was just using to show how time can't be uncaused lol

My point here is that for the possibility, a living and progressing plot, that is, a continuous story, is necessary. And for this, a linear time is required. And there is a continuity of time in a verse that is usually a manipulation of probability.

I'm confused on the plot point, there are fictional characters beyond and can still cause change and atemporal fiction characters who can be changed and cause change themselves so.

I don't know what the theory of form is doing here. This philosophical thought of Plato is based on the idea that only non-physical forms represent the truest reality. In other words, it is a mentality that paves the way for metaphysics to some extent. But it has nothing to do with probability.

It's an analogy, "something atemporal can be changed hence change happens independent of temporality".

Quantum mechanics is usually relevant in MWI, but I'm not talking about MWI.

I didn't even talk about mwi here, I'm talking about the universe being probabilistic which denounces it being deterministic which by extension denounces eternalism which denounces the possibility of time being eternal in an actual infinity sense but because potential infinity also has a beginning even if was eternal in a potential infinity sense it would still be caused/have a beginning.

That is, the possibility that a story or event is expected to happen, but still not entirely certain. And in order for this event to continue or happen, there has to be a "continuity", and this requires a time continuum

That's why you'd have to posit change being dependent on temporality by necessity but we know this isn't the case so something can be actualized without time existing.

Time exist in our universe, it existing means its logically possible that time exist and the possibility is actualized but time is not uncaused and eternal therefore at one point the possibility of time existing was actualized regardless of time existing for it to be actualized. If possible outcomes needed time to be actualized then time wouldn't actualize itself if time didn't exist beforehand.

 

[Georredannea15]

It's not in this case I was just using to show how time can't be uncaused lol



It's an analogy, "something atemporal can be changed hence change happens independent of temporality".

I didn't even talk about mwi here, I'm talking about the universe being probabilistic which denounces it being deterministic which by extension denounces eternalism which denounces the possibility of time being eternal in an actual infinity sense but because potential infinity also has a beginning even if was eternal in a potential infinity sense it would still be caused/have a beginning.

That's why you'd have to posit change being dependent on temporality by necessity but we know this isn't the case so something can be actualized without time existing.

Time exist in our universe, it existing means its logically possible that time exist and the possibility is actualized but time is not uncaused and eternal therefore at one point the possibility of time existing was actualized regardless of time existing for it to be actualized. If possible outcomes needed time to be actualized then time wouldn't actualize itself if time didn't exist beforehand.

I know what you mean, more or less. Btw we don't always assume that.

 

[ImmortalDread]

We assume time to be eternal for tiering purposes, but there is no proof of this.

 

[Georredannea15]

We assume time to be eternal for tiering purposes, but there is no proof of this.

but time is not uncaused

I mean this

 

[Theoretical]

I know what you mean, more or less. Btw we don't always assume that.

At the end of the day, the point is it depends on the fictional verse. That's why I said it's high 3-A because it's not like it directly posits the existence of a temporal dimension, so we can't infer existing because change happens when change is something that can happen without it.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I don't think it's high 3-A either. It's stated to be world, without any additional context, it could refer to planet or universe or anything else. Its contextual dependence in my opinion.

 

[Georredannea15]

At the end of the day, the point is it depends on the fictional verse. That's why I said it's high 3-A because it's not like it directly posits the existence of a temporal dimension, so we can't infer existing because change happens when change is something that can happen without it.

If there is no time continuum imperative. I think this space would be 3-A rather than H3-A.

 

[Theoretical]

If there is no time continuum imperative. I think this space would be 3-A rather than H3-A.

A probability space cannot be 3-A, it's infinite. (usually anyways)

 

[Robo432343]

i can see High 3-A but not Low 2-C

 

[Georredannea15]

A probability space cannot be 3-A, it's infinite. (usually anyways)

But the statement can be requested in the verse. (in the wiki)

 

[Theoretical]

But the statement can be requested in the verse. (in the wiki)

I said that under the presupposition that the verse does infact contain a genuine probability space.

But if not and there's not enough evidence sure.

 

[ImmortalDread]

A probability space cannot be 3-A, it's infinite. (usually anyways)

May you show me that in wiki? Since I surely did not miss that part.

 

[Theoretical]

May you show me that in wiki? Since I surely did not miss that part.

It's there. In the sample space page, it's denoted for using the omega symbol after that elaborated on how this infinite set/sample space contains possible outcomes {s1, s2, s3, s4,..... N}.

Furthermore there's an explanation of the functions in the probability space page, the function being "P : F ⇒ [0, 1]" . In which [0, 1] is a closed interval of 0 and 1 which is an uncountable set.

 

[ImmortalDread]

It says it could be infinite, finite or even uncountable infinite. There is no definitive set. I take it as 3-A till proven otherwise.

 

[Georredannea15]

It says it could be infinite, finite or even uncountable infinite. There is no definitive set. I take it as 3-A till proven otherwise.

I agree with this

 

[Theoretical]

It says it could be infinite, finite or even uncountable infinite. There is no definitive set. I take it as 3-A till proven otherwise.

A probability space cannot be 3-A, it's infinite. (usually anyways)

Emphasis on "usually".

 

[ImmortalDread]

Well, you said “cannot”, so I was commenting on that part, but alright

 

[Theoretical]

Well, you said “cannot”, so I was commenting on that part, but alright

Cannot falls under "usually".

Cause I said cannot and elaborated as to why after that I said "usually".

 

[ImmortalDread]

“Cannot” refers to something that is impossible or not allowed, while “usually” refers to something that happens frequently or in most cases.

No, they both serves different purposes and no way they are in the same set.

 

[Theoretical]

“Cannot” refers to something that is impossible or not allowed, while “usually” refers to something that happens frequently or in most cases.

Definitions need not be generalized at the cost of context.

"cannot" can refer to something impossible. However contextually that's not the case by necessity; I can say "I usually cannot go outside without an umbrella when it's raining" that's not equivalent to "it is impossible for me to go outside without an umbrella when it's raining".

No, they both serves different purposes and no way they are in the same set.

You can have an affirmative term and it's negation in one sentence and still form a semantically intelligible and coherent sentence. Oxymorons can be used to form coherent sentences.

"I usually cannot go outside when it's raining without an umbrella, but I went outside today" under normal circumstances I cannot go outside when it's raining without an umbrella but I went outside today.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Let's agree to disagree.

Besides your analogy is false, since in your original comment you did not say “but” to create negation. You created a contradictory sentence.

 

[Theoretical]

Let's agree to disagree.

Besides your analogy is false, since in your original comment you did not say “but” to create negation. You created a contradictory sentence.

"usually" instantiates a "but", but ye we can drop it.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Sure, not that I disagree with it, but the original statement had “always” which make it confusing to interpret your intention. Apologies

 

[Theoretical]

Np