|
Author
|
Topic: De-ambiguating chance
|
complex
Member
Member # 259
|
posted 02. June 2006 07:05
I believe that the concept of "chance" is ambiguous. I should not have to give my credentials to make this statement and hope that it will be taken at face value -- but given its controversial nature I state that I make it as a heavy user of probability and statistics in the scientific domain.
The reason for my claim is that there is rarely a differentiation between mechanism and epistemology. The former has ontology but the latter does not. But that I mean that if we are ignorant of the nature or distribution of an effect or set of effects and model it a chance happening, then this is a practical tool for the enterprise of engineering or science but has no bearing on the actual mechanism causing the phenomenon, which may be perfectly deterministic. For example, I may choose to model the time Mr. Higgins leavs his house in the morning as a statistical distribution, but only Mr. Higgins knows for sure the reality behind any particular event (that he burned the toast this morning for example).
However, if chance is an ontological phenomena then we have something far more interesting in that the causal nature of the event cannot be determined even with the best of knowledge. This is claimed for physical events for example, even though this issue has yet to be settled because the claim that there is absolutely no determiner for an event leads to philosophical problems.
I believe the confusion between these two natures of the concept of "chance", if clearly disambiguated, would lead to a clearing up of misunderstandings concerning biological development. If we ascribe a "mutation" or a "selection" event to chance, then what would we really be saying? Would it be epistemic chance, (in which case we could dismiss it) or would it be ontological chance? If epistemic chance only then perphaps the "chance" mechanism in reality was aligned in some way (as yet to be understood) with the potential of creation of biological mechanism which appears to have no relation with the original mechanism, which if we traced out completely would have a logical relationship.
The evolutionary literature is filled with arguments of chance and there is an effort to go back and question those arguments while standing on the same ambiguous understandings of chance when perhaps the effort should concentrate on saying what we mean by that term.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 02. June 2006 07:43
complex: "I believe that the concept of "chance" is ambiguous."
Certainly there is ambiguity in words used in common parlance and the notion of "chance" often contains elements of superstition; but in science and statistics, "chance" refers to the likeihood of an event without regard to the causes involved. So it could refer to the likelihood that a particular car in traffic will turn left or turn right (1. which has a cause averaged out by statistics), or it could refer to the roll of dice (2. which are deterministic, but chaotic), or it could refer to quantum effects which are inherently random (3. and assuming physical realism, decoupled from any possible local causation).
Let me point out that "random" is a different term and refers to a specific statistical distribution. So dice (2) and uranium decay (3) form a random distribution, "chance" referring to the probability of a sampling.
complex: "If we ascribe a 'mutation' or a 'selection' event to chance, then what would we really be saying?"
As genes replicate on a molecular level, quantum uncertainty results in mutation (3). Some mutations are caused by cosmic rays (2). And some are caused by mutagens or pathogens (1).
It can be shown experimentally that mutations are generally random (decoupled) with respect to any benefit to the organism.
[ 02. June 2006, 10:01: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 23. July 2006 23:51
complex;
"I believe that the concept of "chance" is ambiguous."
I too argue against the typical use of chance and the use of possibility as well.
How can anyone say that this or that has a chance of occuring without knowing the exact forces that would serve to effect the occurance? If there is any question as to the forces shaping a chance or possibility then one should not be able to infer the use of the phrase. Only when one is apprised of all the facts should they be able to invoke chance or possibility.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 24. July 2006 23:07
Let’s roll two fair, six sided, dice. Since the surface where the dice come to rest is flat, large, and normal to the gravitational vector, we assume that each of the 36 possible outcomes is equally likely. This assumption is further imposed on us because it is impossible to control all of the variables in the experiment. Unless of course we set the two dice down, one by one, very carefully; but this is hardly a roll.
I agree with Zachreal that the result of this experiment is completely determined by the forces and other variables at play. I do not, on the other hand, understand his use of the term “chaotic” with respect to this experiment. I will say that the results are unpredictable. This is precisely why it is called a game of chance and probability theory is used in its study. The predicted distribution of the 12 different sums over an infinite number of trials is then only as good as the assumption that each of 36 outcomes is equally likely. If the assumptions are sound then the model is useful.
The model is never perfect however. Any empirically collected set of a finite number of trials could very greatly from the predicted distribution. Why? Because math, in this case probability theory, is not a player in physical reality; it is merely a predictor. The probability distribution of sums can’t alter the course of any die in any trial of the experiment.
Now, if we all would use the term “chance” to refer to the likelihood of an event without regard to the causes involved, as Zachreal suggests we should, then all would be clear.
All is not clear however. If for any physical event the causal nature can’t be determined even with perfect knowledge of the physical universe, then Complex has made an understatement. Not only would we have a philosophical problem, we would have a real problem. Such an event would be summarily decoupled from any physical cause and would necessarily put to death any notion of an all knowing, all powerful God. What would be left as the driving force of change in the universe? Chance [quantum uncertainty] would then be the only viable candidate. Unfortunately the models show that chance would “seek” out the most statistically likely state. That state prohibits life of any kind. That is a real problem.
The good news is no such event exists and quantum uncertainty [a probability distribution] is more of a monument to our physical limitations than it is a description of the workings of the physical universe.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic