Philosophy Now Forum

Do you believe in that if it can happen, it will?

I do based on what I've read and experienced.

PhilX

What do you mean by 'it will'?

I can win a million with this lottery ticket, therefore I will.
I can choose vanilla if I want, therefore I will.
The spin measurement of this particle can be positive, therefore the measurement will.

The first two illustrate the absurdity of the statement as posted.
The third one illustrates what I mean by asking what you mean by 'it will'.

Noax wrote:What do you mean by 'it will'?

I can win a million with this lottery ticket, therefore I will.
I can choose vanilla if I want, therefore I will.
The spin measurement of this particle can be positive, therefore the measurement will.

The first two illustrate the absurdity of the statement as posted.
The third one illustrates what I mean by asking what you mean by 'it will'.

It's based on "if it can happen."

PhilX

Determinism means whatever happens is information about the only thing that could happen.

Based on experience, if the probability is greater than zero, then I say it will happen at some point.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Based on experience, if the probability is greater than zero, then I say it will happen at some point.

PhilX

Probability is a measure of the observer's uncertainty, no? Until QM, we would not say that a probability was "real". In classical determinist physics, nothing has a probability in and of itself.

OuterLimits wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Based on experience, if the probability is greater than zero, then I say it will happen at some point.

PhilX

Probability is a measure of the observer's uncertainty, no? Until QM, we would not say that a probability was "real". In classical determinist physics, nothing has a probability in and of itself.

What do you mean about probability being real?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Do you believe in that if it can happen, it will?

No, not at all.

To believe "If it can happen, it will," you'd have to believe, for example, that when we flip a coin, it's not actually possible for it to land on either heads or tails in a particular instance--you'd have to believe that only what turns out to be the actual outcome was possible.

Why do you have to believe that? Well, otherwise, on that particular instance, you'd have to believe that it came up BOTH heads and tails if "If it can happen, it will" is true.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Based on experience, if the probability is greater than zero, then I say it will happen at some point.

PhilX

That's ignoring that probabilities obtain for specific instances though (well, or it's denying that they do), which is why I stressed that in my post above.

This is actually an important question in this context, because it's a matter of how one interprets the idea of probability in general.

The one side would be an assertion of strong causal determinism, where probabilities are seen as merely epistemic factors hinging on a lack of sufficient information to know what the outcome of something will be.

The other side sees probability as an ontological fact; it's a denial of strong causal determinism in at least some scenarios. Probability in this case is a matter of some events not being completely determined by other precedent and concurrent states of affairs.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

OuterLimits wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Based on experience, if the probability is greater than zero, then I say it will happen at some point.

PhilX

Probability is a measure of the observer's uncertainty, no? Until QM, we would not say that a probability was "real". In classical determinist physics, nothing has a probability in and of itself.

What do you mean about probability being real?

PhilX

Your language seemed to suggest that probability was something that really exists. If a flip a coin, and I look at it, I know that it is heads or tails, but until you look, it has a probability of being one or the other. So, trick of perspective.

Somethings will never happen. Like a penny randomly flipping and landing on heads 1 million times.
Because the damping constraints of this universe dampen it from ever happening.

First there has to be a planet with lifeforms who make coins. Then these lifeforms have to be nolives who flip the same coin everyday.
And they have to do it over and over.

But even if there was a robot civilization that flipped a coin over and over, the dampening physics will ensure the coin never lands on its heads 1 million times. It will just not happen even after a google years.