Crazy-Sounding Probabilities. How Does the Macroscopic Physical Universe Even Have Randomness ? Free Will and Safe Trips to Mars.

Christmas speculations on some serious probability questions:

(i)              Assertion: there exists no up-front basis for the assumption of, p = ½, for the fair coin flip, even with symmetry, in the physical Universe, model or measurement. That probability verified experimentally only to reasonable precision, by limited experimental measurement and mostly by the fact that engineering and technology work. Thus, fully empirical probabilities with limited knowledge of the error bars, i.e., local-to-planet-Earth information only. Otherwise, implicit assumptions of invariance of physical law in space and time. Any well justified error bars at all, non-locally ? How does probability arise at macroscopic level, in the full physical Universe model, not just classical fields ? Does QM have to manifest at macroscopic level ? 

To spell this out, that p ~ 1/2 is known to apply only local to Earth and cannot be assumed, without reasonable assumptions, anywhere else in the Universe. So, when we hear that ~95% of the Universe is 'missing', as dark energy and matter (wiki), then how about relaxing some of the really basic 'reasonable' assumptions ?

(ii)             At subsystem level, probability arises due to unknown variation of initial conditions and applied forces. Subsystem probability functions then built from models, or experimental characterisation, assuming or determining, the typically unknown form of initial conditions and applied force variations. And irrespective of the additional uncertainties, due to environmental non uniformity and lack of exact time invariance. Instead, subsystem probability distribution functions, i.e., variations about p ~ ½ or p ~ 1/6, capturing characterised variations in initial conditions and applied forces, even with full symmetry, in uniform, invariant environments. Then is it even obvious, why precise subsystem model values should be p = ½ or p = 1/6, for the fair coin flip and fair dice role, even with full symmetry and assuming environmental uniformity ?

Flip sequences based on detailed classical modelling of individual flip dynamics, requires a collection of random (thumb, initial angle) variables, to capture variation in unknown applied forces and initial conditions. Those random variables are simply fabricated, if not characterised experimentally or modelled physically. This related to the the usual selection of some ideal, known and convenient parent distribution, when approximating an actual, unknown empirical parent population. Broadly, the usual significance testing approach in application. And how to determine experimentally, or model, repeated position of body and hand, to specify the ensemble of initial conditions and applied forces, for sequences of all future coin flips ? At some level, biology and mind come into this model.

(iii)           However, the initial conditions and applied forces for every hierarchically-nested, embedded subsystem are fully determined. Thus, how does probability arise at full Universe level ? Putatively, mind travelling along world line in classical, macroscopic multi-Universe, of end-to-end fully deterministic, macroscopic, classical sub-Universes. Then, how is the probabilistic transition made or decided, from sub-Universe to sub-Universe ? Why assume p = ½ for the fair coin flip, even with symmetry ? In this meta-physics model, invoked to ‘explain’ how probability arises at all, at macroscopic level, for the full Universe, what or who, decides the step between sub-Universes ? What reason to assume p = ½ for the fair coin flip ? This would require a meta-model, which would become science when accessible experimentally. So entirely speculatively, might classical probabilistic determinism, for the full Universe at macroscopic scale, rest on a meta-model of mind, say, as one putative possibility ? Or on some other decision-making meta-criteria, e.g., monism pictures say, or pan-psychism, perhaps expressed in broadly Bohmian pilot wave form, or something like cellular automata, with information associated at elementary particle level. Thus, ultimately perhaps, an info-based Universe, perhaps with both matter and mind. 

In this model, there is no free will problem implied by simple determinism. However, there never actually is a free will problem on the basis of known science. Any conclusion drawn on the basis of current science is always an overextrapolation on any line of reasoning, as current science is always incomplete. And for total lack of free will to be a justified scientific assertion, it would be necessary to search every point of the Universe, test for the presence of free will at every point, and fail everywhere. In practice, the test would fail immediately. For this test, a reasonable definition of free will would be required, e.g., I have free will if I think I have free will. And in a model where consciousness was primary, as discussed above, it might make better sense to start with consciousness, and related, empirically observed free will, and derive science, i.e., consciousness as primary, in description of the Universe, speculatively and as discussed by some authors.

Chaos and classical probabilistic determinism. Does it matter ? Not given infinite precision development, i.e., a physical Universe which is not a finite accuracy simulation. Then chaos is deterministic.

To generalise the above world line model further, we could envisage a 'mind Universe' following its Universe world volume, through a vast, branching, N-multiverse of potential Universes, actualising them to the physical Universe as that 'mind Universe' picks its way through every single, classical, macroscopic, probabilistic decision. p ~ 1/2 would be imposed by the 'mind Universe' only local to Earth. Beyond that, reasonable assumptions everywhere non local to Earth.

It is also interesting to consider that, sketching a model of wavefunction evolution for the Universe, a single Universe developing from a single set of initial conditions, develops uniquely as a probability density function. And thus a QM evolution is still 'deterministic' (!) in the sense of being fully prescribed development, though with 'envelope uncertainty'. Every human, sentient, mind, or measurement operation, fully determined by, and included within, the development of the 'Universe wavefunction'. That is, everything reducible to free propagation of particles, and particle interconversion.

(iv)           Make a trip to Mars, considering safety critical systems. What error bars to put on every empirical quantity ? Probability and statistics are all empirical, as in (ii).

(v)             Rocket science. 😊 But, it would be really interesting to ask the question to those planning Mars missions. Is *every* input considered empirically, all stats and probability, and how wide the error bars as tolerances ? What value empirical input without error bars ? And how to judge the error bars without theoretical or experimental characterisation ? Has all that characterisation been done, and are those error bars all well quantified and known already ? And what about the assumption of invariance of physical law in space and time, non local to the planet ? What can justifiably be assumed, with no direct, non local measurements ? How big the error bars on all input empirical probability and stats quantities, justifiably ? Are those error bars known at all, rather than being a matter of reasonable assumption ? How many lines of code to check for false implicit assumptions ? And how about any maths models based implicitly on assumptions of energy conservation, momentum conservation, or conservation of angular momentum ? Are the error bars due to local environmental heterogeneity, and variation of system with time, already all available ? Including non local to planet, characterised rather than simply assumed. Same question to psi-experimenters, e.g., die roll and coin flip ? Order of magnitude estimates for deviation from ideal test sequences. Where do deviations arise, typical test series lengths, or the duration of the Universe, say ? And probability distribution functions for ‘p ~ ½’ and ‘p ~ 1/6’ for the fair coin flip and fair die role. As these depend on unknown initial conditions and applied force variations in subsystems, why is it even obvious, that probability or probability distribution function, will be the same, subsystem to subsystem or between collections of subsystems ? Empirically this holds, i.e., engineering and technology work. In reality, have Earth-local error bars only, on the basis that technology and engineering work OK. *But* have there been any Earth-local critical failures, never identified, or wrongly explained, based on the above sorts of implicit assumptions ? Then to ‘the last implicit assumption’ argument … .’ For instance, that Earth-local experimental results, for all physical models applicable to the Mars mission, apply between Earth and Mars, say, at a level that is known to be unproblematic ? That for billions of lines of code in safety critical systems ? Again, it would be interesting to ask the question. And from the point of view of the necessary characterisation, what Earth-local observations might allow prior determination of maximum error bars on all utilised physical models applied nonlocally, including empirical probability and stats quantities, if the usual space and time invariance assumptions are lifted and examined numerically ? And how to even identify any other potentially significant implicit assumptions and make them explicit ? At best, for critical systems, this might be worth some serious thought, rather than assuming that all the obvious stuff is adequate. A catastrophe theory type approach, prudence and forethought, based on comprehensive physical modelling, rather than on only short available time series, say.

I'd expect the rocket scientists and engineers to have all bases covered. But I would be interested to ask. Maybe not all considerations were obvious. Hard to know. And what answer to the final questions above. Certainly, I did not think these questions through as an undergrad, PhD or post-doc.

A detour. A fundamental question of the Universe: c**k-up or conspiracy or conspiritorial c**k-up ?

The ‘last implicit assumption’ considered in a wider context of life in general, is it a ‘fair’ Universe ? Hard to know, I go with empirical evidence, internal world and external world, and Empirical optimism, and a related concept ‘c**k up rather than conspiracy’. How easy to fall foul of ‘conspiracy’ ? Could certainly fall foul of subjective absolutism and self-superior, ‘always right’ positions. Where do absolutist and critically considered positions differ, if all sides consider all aspects of all problems ? Once opinion has been reached, only the absolutist position, imposes its decision by even ‘soft’ force and violence. Non absolutist positions express a view, but do not force anybody to listen, or act, if they do not want to. Freedom of speech and action.

And ‘conspiracy’ is not a valid concept in science, if the notion is used to reject any possibilities up-front without due consideration, only in scientism. Lots of scientists express opinions, and all opinions are valid. But not all opinions held by scientists, are scientific statements or statements of science. Any possibility is scientifically unexamined, until all experimental evidence is in and analysis performed. No possibilities denied up-front. Such unexamined, up-front denial is scientism. Intuition of this scientist, as an opinion of a scientist, but not a statement of science: empirically and on the whole, c**k-up rather than conspiracy. Though there undoubtedly exist the malign.

In big-question mode, free will, what is it ?

The determinism and free will argument. How can anyone assume free will, no matter how powerful they may be, say, if they cannot guarantee that they are not coupled to, or embedded within, a larger system ? Thus little gods, how would they know they were not the puppets of a bigger god, say ? And infinite regression, closed loop argument, if you think you are at the controls of my machine, how do you know that I am not at the controls of your machine ? How to know that there is no larger embedding or coupled system, perhaps going closed-loop ? Perhaps free will, as a tentative definition, is: ‘you have free will if you think you have free will’, from typical human to little god, say. And in the context of medical complaints decision making, the axiomatic A1 versus A1’ position, perhaps leading to discrimination which can go unremarked, until those who assume the unjustified A1’ position, get bitten in the bottom by the fact that they are actually coupled to, or embedded within, a larger system. Which means that application of their knowledge system, in its domain of application, is not correctly valid, with any consequences that may arise. Thus, some consequences to such A1' position-holders themselves. Whereas they do not consider consequences for complainant mind, which is invisible to them or of no value from their perspective. Thus, for instance and as an example, internal world and fully subjective decision making, versus domain of application of knowledge in the p / e / maw. Fully subjective decision making, fine from the point of those making the decisions, until the consequences actually impact them. And in the p / e / maw, there are hard facts, under reasonable assumptions, and refusing to examine the available p / e / maw evidence can be expected to have consequences. Conclusions can be wrong. That is the underlying scientific assumption.

 p / e / maw = physical external mutually world

The author considers his interaction with psych’s. Are psych’s scientists ? Do psych’s think they are scientists ? Do psych’s think that other people (patients or the religious say) are uncritically thinking and unreasoning ?

Certainly, the psych’s with whom I deal, think that they should inject me repeatedly, by force. However, at the last Community Treatment Order meeting, I suspect it was the Associated Mental Health Professional who swung the argument. The Responsible Clinician and Community Care Coordinator wanted to keep injecting me. Perspective. What did they see, that I did not ? And why, as carers and healers, did they think that I needed to be on supervision ‘in the Community’ ? Why did, and presumably, do they think that I cannot think for myself and that they must think for me ?

The author read a very interesting paper, but with some perhaps unintentional bias … .

The psychologist interview methodology, and categories of critical analysis and reasoning ability. E.g., I have seen it used to beat-on those with a religious perspective (from view of one article that I read, for example). Psych’ implicit world viewism. Thus, scientifically and objectively (not scientistically), perhaps add interview categories to describe those with a scientific world view, who make strictly illogical arguments which generate scientistic opinion rather than accurate scientific statement. It is the scientific position, that all questions are undetermined, until the experimental evidence is in and the analysis performed. However, that is not always how science is perceived or expressed as opinion by some scientists, or by many holders of the scientific world view. And how to judge strict logical correctness of an argument ? In this interview methodology example, correctness, rather than psych’ ego or sloppy implicit world viewism. Thus, ‘scientific world view’ opinions, that typically reject God, or ‘pseudoscience’, say, as never possibly being good science.

Science can certainly include God and what is viewed as pseudoscience, in sound scientific fashion. For instance, God as many things to many people. Build scientific input->output models for statistical correlation between variation in belief and world impact. What does it mean to say that God does not exist, when clear world impact is so huge ? This is God as the idea of the thing, God as meme, and it is the idea that has the world impact. Detailed models of propagation of belief in God, might be treated by memetics say, or info-based engineering. And memes can be imaged, for instance by MRI, thus on a sounder footing than they used to be, e.g., McNamara, University of Surry. No conflict with religious believers, who can believe in the thing itself. And arguably, that could be a pure faith position, resting on no visible, empirical evidence, at all. Thus god ‘proven’ by science, to within experimental accuracy and statistical reproducibility and reasonable assumptions. The scientific version of god different to say a Creator God. But non-trivial. How important the idea of God, for the thing itself ? My other LinkedIn blogs and Quora answers.

Typical scientific world view and opinion are often scientistic. How for those interview-methodology-psych’s to assess the logical correctness of positions that they may view as scientific, but which may actually be scientistic, i.e. assuming unjustifiably, too much up-front ? A methodologically very difficult task, to eschew implicit world viewism. Requiring a careful, critical, and objective examination of own arguments as well as those of other perspectives. Thus, round the loop. Such critical evaluation requires examination of evidence, not up-front refusal to consider any other party’s point of view. Such up-front refusal is scientistic, i.e., assuming the solution unjustifiably. Until examined, the answer to any question is undetermined. Ultimately, what implicit assumptions in one’s own position ? And how to identify the last implicit assumption ? How to know that there is no coupled or embedding system, that might make own position and knowledge system invalid, in its domain of application ? With possible resulting consequences to those refusing to examine evidence of the other position ? This is the usual civil rights, racism, homophobia, …, argument. Unexamined discrimination, until the holders of discriminatory positions are impacted themselves, by their own views. Whilst their views have no consequences for those that hold those views, discriminatory positions can continue unexamined and unremarked, and human rights violations can occur.

All fairly and carefully considered positions, still become opinions, i.e., all knowledge and truth is relative and subjective. The difference between absolutist positions and others, is that the absolutist position, carefully considered or otherwise, will impose itself by violence, even if ‘soft’ force. That is: others have dogma; everyone has dogma; or other have dogma and I do not. All key life positions and values, ultimately being dogmatic. The absolutist position often taking the third form. And a ‘maturity argument’, which I suspect that I encounter in NHS complaints proceedings about repeated propagation of falsehoods by medics, running in various forms, roughly: it is me, I am honest, therefore I am right, and so I do not need to examine any more evidence, I have enough already. In this case, absolute refusal to examine key p / e / maw evidence in its domain of application. Specifically, documentary evidence, evaluable based on a balance of probabilities basis, as now describing past events. Due process followed, but on the basis of unexamined, thus unchallenged information. That false information unchallengeable, as point-blank refused examination. Due process, based on possibly false information, should not be called due process.

P / e / maw = physical external mutually accessible world

Continue the progressing line of thought, with some critical evaluation of mind, broadly psychology by a physicist examining his own internal world experience empirically:

Mindscape / plays / scenes storyline notion of mindscape inhabited by subjective absolutist, mindscape characters , e.g., theocracy, or little gods bicameral-mind-like, Jaynes, a different concept, who do not believe that the p / e / maw exists, say. As they exist only inside my head, all their decisions and perspective, necessarily internal world hence subjective. Thus distortingly-reflective of p / e / maw. If they are inside my head, do such characters see through my eyes ? In practice, it is not possible to experience another person’s experience as they experience it. So even an internal psych’ would be able to express only 100% subjective opinions. Cognitive psychology, as valid science of mind, could ascertain introspective mindscape by methodologically sound interview, eschewing all implicit world viewism. However, for this approach to work, the patient or complainant would actually have to be listened to, instead of attaching almost zero decision making weight to his personal statements, on the grounds that he is already known to be seriously mentally ill, or dismissing him as a liar. Thus, actual anti-science, refusing explicitly to consider any of the complainant’s written work, to avoid the ‘banana skin’ of slipping on his circumscribed, refractory and toxic delusions.

Perspective. What does complainant see and what do psych’s see, and what does anybody else see ? Who makes what of the same written words ?

A lot of today’s blog is old material from my other LinkedIn blogs and Quora answers, but a vacation gives chance to think through further, and make the same arguments in more carefully stated form.

Psych’s have written in my medical notes that ‘he was energised and tapping away at his keyboard’. The implication being that such strange and abnormal activity, as an IT Consultant, is indicative of such serious mental ill health, that they were justified in detaining me repeatedly by force, for weeks and months at a time, and injecting me by force repeatedly. In reality, I do recreational science and philosophy enthusiastically.

This Christmas line of thought could run and run.

Go see the family. Stop.

Back to the day-job.