Possibility (two perspectives)

[fast]

There are two different perspectives that I can see but do not have the words to differentiate them. I’m looking for the terms.

I’ll use dice to explain what I’m talking about. There are six possibilities. If it lands on a two, I understand that there is no real physical possibility that it’s on a different number, yet that doesn’t alter the truth of what I just said: “there are six possibilities.”

I prefer the view that distinguishes POSSIBILITY from ACTUALITY. Each number is possible. Only that which is possible can be actual, and if something is actual, it’s obviously possible. But, none of this should allow knowledge of what’s actual to undermine the possibilities.

If I throw a quarter over a house (such that it will land on either heads or tails—no other options for the scenario), then there are two possibilities for what it can land on. Once it’s landed, it will actually be on one of the two possibilities, yet for some people, they want to deny all other possibilities once what’s actually came to be the case.

Let’s use the die again. Let’s throw it up and let it land. Bob sees what’s showing and immediately covers it up. I ask you (who does not know what it landed on), you will not be able to tell me what it actually landed on, but you’ll acknowledge there are six possibilities. Bob, on the other hand, can tell me what it’s on, and because of that, he’ll want to deny the possibilities. You too, may for some reason also want to deny as does bob once you learn the truth.

However, it’s my view that the possibilities we all embrace shouldn’t be cast aside post knowledge of what actually happened.

If the cat is either in the house or out the house, we are aware there are two possibilities. But that self acknowledged truth seems to vanish for a lot of people when they learn where the cat is. After all, one might say, “how can the cat possibly be inside when the cat is right here by our feet.” That’s one sense I need a term for.

When I say “the cat is possibly inside, possibly outside, and actually inside,” it’s not my intention to convey something weird. I just want to maintain the understanding that what’s actually the case is among all the possibilities.

 

[PyramidHead]

I agree with this take on probability (I prefer that term to possibility as it's more granular). To say that something is improbable is to say that the potential paths to it happening--even if determinism is true and only one of those paths will eventually be taken--are such that the number of paths in which it happens is dwarfed by the number of paths in which it doesn't. There are many more ways to pick a spade from a fair deck of cards than there are ways to pick the Jack of Clubs from a fair deck of cards. This is an objective fact about the world, not a reflection of our epistemological ignorance before picking the card; there are more spades than there are Jacks of Clubs.

 

[fromderinside]

 A priori and a posteriori

 

[fast]

 A priori and a posteriori

The possibility is not altered by knowledge. The chance of landing on a two is equal to that of the chance of landing on a three. That possibility remains intact and unchanged even after we learn what the die landed on.

So, after the role, and being fully aware of the end result, I want to speak of possibility such as we would had the role not been made.

If it lands on a four:

P1 rolling on a one is possible

Not was possible

But is possible

Why? Because it’s a possibility

Knowledge has no effect

How can it BE on a 4 and STILL BE that P1 is true?

I want to better explain how that is

 

[Treedbear]

I agree with this take on probability (I prefer that term to possibility as it's more granular). To say that something is improbable is to say that the potential paths to it happening--even if determinism is true and only one of those paths will eventually be taken--are such that the number of paths in which it happens is dwarfed by the number of paths in which it doesn't. There are many more ways to pick a spade from a fair deck of cards than there are ways to pick the Jack of Clubs from a fair deck of cards. This is an objective fact about the world, not a reflection of our epistemological ignorance before picking the card; there are more spades than there are Jacks of Clubs.

I'd agree with that. Probability expresses what we know about something. It's the thing that remains constant before, during, and after an event. Possibility expresses an ignorance. An event wouldn't be referred to as highly possible, but rather highly probable. If a die is rolled but the result isn't yet known there are six equally possible results. It would be incorrect to ask what the probability is of finding any particular result. When the result is revealed all the other possibilities vanish. But the probability remains the same.

 

[fast]

There’s a sense of probable where there’s a likelihood greater than unlikely (for example, greater than 50%), but there’s also a sense of probable that follows the entire continuum (for example, a 5% probability of success). So, although there is a degree of probability (probable in one sense), one would not say success is probable (in the sense a likelyhood of success is greater than failure).

When looking at possibilities (for instance, in possible outcomes —irregardless of the associated probabilities of different outcomes, one could simply count the entirety of possible outcomes. A die that’s loaded to more often land on an odd number may not share the same probability for landing on an even number than an odd number, but as far as possibilites go, each is a possibility in its own right.

 

[fromderinside]

 A priori and a posteriori

The possibility is not altered by knowledge. The chance of landing on a two is equal to that of the chance of landing on a three. That possibility remains intact and unchanged even after we learn what the die landed on.

So, after the role, and being fully aware of the end result, I want to speak of possibility such as we would had the role not been made.

If it lands on a four:

P1 rolling on a one is possible

Not was possible

But is possible

Why? Because it’s a possibility

Knowledge has no effect

How can it BE on a 4 and STILL BE that P1 is true?

I want to better explain how that is

To work the world the way you want one needs to continue building arguments. One never comes to a resolution since what you want is tautology. There is that which is possible and that possibility which is realized. Possibility may be an of potential outcomes (potential and possible are the same thing). That which occurs after time t=0 is reality that is. That possibility that didn't occur after time t=0 remains a future possibile reality.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If the cat is either in the house or out the house, we are aware there are two possibilities. But that self acknowledged truth seems to vanish for a lot of people when they learn where the cat is. After all, one might say, “how can the cat possibly be inside when the cat is right here by our feet.” That’s one sense I need a term for.

When I say “the cat is possibly inside, possibly outside, and actually inside,” it’s not my intention to convey something weird. I just want to maintain the understanding that what’s actually the case is among all the possibilities.

No.

Your suggestion, as I see it, seems a reluctance to let go of our ignorance and accept the appearance of clear cut knowledge. Once I know the cat is napping on the armchair because I'm looking at it right now, it is indeed not possible that he is also climbing up the trunk of the one tree in the garden as if suddenly possessed by the Devil Himself.

What would be the causal power of possibilities once falsified by the actuality of only one of them? I could have become a bus driver but didn't and now, it seems pretty certain I won't ever be. At some point in time it was possible that I become a bus driver but, actually, I never was a bus driver. It was possible. It's not longer possible. It is not possible. There was a possibility. There is no possibility. Were would be the problem, exactly?

So, no, what is actually the case is the only possibility left. We think in terms of several possibilities before learning of the outcome, because we are still ignorant of what will turn out to be the case. Once we know, there's just one possibility left, i.e. what is the actual case.

Where would be the problem in the distinction between past possibilities that no longer exist and the one current possibility which is the actual case, given our knowledge of the current situation.

Worse. What we though was possible never was. There was no real possibility that I became a bus driver. Possibilities are only conceivable outcome given our current ignorance. X is possible because I don't know that X is false. As soon as I know X is false, X is no longer a possibility and from the vantage point of knowing the present, I now know that X never was a possibility, It was an epistemological possibility, one based on ignorance, not an ontological possibility like the actual case is and always was.

Of course, all this is merely our default understanding of things. However, I really don't think that it would be possible to prove me wrong.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

 A priori and a posteriori

The possibility is not altered by knowledge. The chance of landing on a two is equal to that of the chance of landing on a three. That possibility remains intact and unchanged even after we learn what the die landed on.

First of all, that's not true. An ordinary-looking die with six faces will be deemed to have six possible outcomes, so landing a 6 would be just one possibility. Then we cast the die and learn the actual outcome of that. It's a 3. A 6 is no longer possible. Alea jacta est. The die is cast. 6 is no longer a possibility.

Of course, you will consider future possibilities...

6 again?

Show

Er, no. It's a 4. Try again? 5. Again? 2.

OK, I give you the last 20 outcomes:

Show

3, 4, 5, 3, 2, 3, 1, 5, 4, 1, 1, 1, 5, 2, 3, 1, 4, 4, 5, 4.

See? As you get to learn how the die behaves for real, you gradually realise no 6 will ever come out and that, yes, landing a 6 never was a possibility to begin with. Same for anything else. It's called empirical evidence. Your initial belief in the possibility of landing a 6 was based on past experience... with other dice. Now you learn how this die really behaves and that contrary to your initial belief, 6 isn't a possibility at all. All the empirical evidence available to us is always evidence of past events. No empirical evidence about the future. Hence our concept of possibilities.

Were are the possibilities you are talking about?
EB

 

[fast]

I don’t want to deny the possibilities because of the actuality.

Another approach to this has a trace to language. It’s been called tenseless. A way of speaking that doesn’t have a past or present tense. Having a fifth birthday party in Hawaii is possible. Of course, being of an age greater than five and having never been to Hawaii, one might say it’s “now” impossible, but there is still a communicative sense where of all the possibilities, that is one of them. The truth value might change given a past tense, and in the present tense, it might be different, but I’m not up to date in speaking in a tenseless manner.

 

[steve_bank]

When I say “the cat is possibly inside, possibly outside, and actually inside

To me that is a logical impossibility as stated. But it is a matter of interpretation. In conversation you might just mean there are two possible conditions and it is currently one of the two. The word possibly implies a probability or uncertainty.


If you modified and said “the cat is possibly inside, possibly outside, and it is probably inside" That would make sense to me. An expression of probability. The cat is in one or two possible places, I expect it is one of the two. Informal reasoning.

Or“the cat can be at times possibly inside, possibly outside, and I know it is inside inside"

Semantics and cone text vs mathematical probabilities and informal erbal reasoning.

Toss a die in the air, until it comes to rest on the floor there are six possibilities. Once it lands and is stable there is only one possibility. Ignoring ending up on an edge or a corner.

 

[Speakpigeon]

When I say “the cat is possibly inside, possibly outside, and actually inside

To me that is a logical impossibility as stated. But it is a matter of interpretation. In conversation you might just mean there are two possible conditions and it is currently one of the two. The word possibly implies a probability or uncertainty.


If you modified and said “the cat is possibly inside, possibly outside, and it is probably inside" That would make sense to me. An expression of probability. The cat is in one or two possible places, I expect it is one of the two. Informal reasoning.

Or“the cat can be at times possibly inside, possibly outside, and I know it is inside inside"

Semantics and cone text vs mathematical probabilities and informal erbal reasoning.

Toss a die in the air, until it comes to rest on the floor there are six possibilities. Once it lands and is stable there is only one possibility. Ignoring ending up on an edge or a corner.

There are other possibilities, though.

Possibilities are not metaphysical beings existing in the abstract Platonist realm as fast seems to believe, they are purposeful considerations of the mind. You logically infer possibilities from whatever assumption you have about the reality of the situation.

Thus, a die may be showing a 6 but you can still consider alternative possibilities. Easy as pie. But they're not possibilities that somehow exist outside your consideration of them. We are always responsible for the possibilities we somehow choose to infer that they are still extant.
EB

 

[fast]

That four is actually what it landed on doesn’t alter the possibility of what it could have landed on.

Before the throw
1 is a possibility and actuality is unknown because it’s yet to be
Same for 2 to 6

After the throw
The truth regarding possibilities shouldn’t have changed. If it wasn’t possible for 4 to be what it would land on, it couldn’t have become the actual number it landed on. It seems to me that if 3 wasn’t possible (as well as 1, 2, 5, and 6), it would have been impossible for those options to have occurred.

 

[steve_bank]

That four is actually what it landed on doesn’t alter the possibility of what it could have landed on.

Before the throw
1 is a possibility and actuality is unknown because it’s yet to be
Same for 2 to 6

After the throw
The truth regarding possibilities shouldn’t have changed. If it wasn’t possible for 4 to be what it would land on, it couldn’t have become the actual number it landed on. It seems to me that if 3 wasn’t possible (as well as 1, 2, 5, and 6), it would have been impossible for those options to have occurred.

Sounds like semantics, A possibility and an actuality are mutually exclusive.

For a six sided die the mathematical probability is 1/6. That means if you toss the die 60 times with reasonable randomness the result will be around 10 counts for each side 1-6. Try the experiment. Or a quarter. Flip the coin 100 times and record H T. It will be around 50%. As the coin is tossed the probability or possibility of H or T is always 50/50, but whether it ends up H or T is not predictable or knowable. When the coin comes to rest it is actual an H or T. Possibility versus actuality.

Once the die lands there is no probability or possibility. The result is an actual number.

Don't know any other way to explain it. maybe flipping a coin may help you. Give a quarter a good shake in cupped hands and toss it 100 times. I did there simple expeimnts 40 years ago when learninmg staistics.

 

[fast]

That four is actually what it landed on doesn’t alter the possibility of what it could have landed on.

Before the throw
1 is a possibility and actuality is unknown because it’s yet to be
Same for 2 to 6

After the throw
The truth regarding possibilities shouldn’t have changed. If it wasn’t possible for 4 to be what it would land on, it couldn’t have become the actual number it landed on. It seems to me that if 3 wasn’t possible (as well as 1, 2, 5, and 6), it would have been impossible for those options to have occurred.

Sounds like semantics, A possibility and an actuality are mutually exclusive.

For a six sided die the mathematical probability is 1/6. That means if you toss the die 60 times with reasonable randomness the result will be around 10 counts for each side 1-6. Try the experiment. Or a quarter. Flip the coin 100 times and record H T. It will be around 50%. As the coin is tossed the probability or possibility of H or T is always 50/50, but whether it ends up H or T is not predictable or knowable. When the coin comes to rest it is actual an H or T. Possibility versus actuality.

Once the die lands there is no probability or possibility. The result is an actual number.

Don't know any other way to explain it. maybe flipping a coin may help you. Give a quarter a good shake in cupped hands and toss it 100 times. I did there simple expeimnts 40 years ago when learninmg staistics.

Actuality requires possibility. For instance, a single die has no possibility (physical possibility, that is) of landing on a seven.
Landing on a four is certainly a possibility, no less or more than landing on anywhere from a one to a six. That fact is demonstrated by your illustration that a subsequent and independent roll shows a calculable possibility.

If it lands on a four yet am told that there is no possibility for a three landing, then that kind of negates why there was a 1 in six chance.

The wording is important, I agree.

Each number is possible. When the actual number is realized, there needs to be a tenseless expression to maintain the understanding that retains the possibilities recognized.

Of the six possibilities, it actually landed on a four. For someone to say that landing on a three isn’t possible (not wasn’t possible—keep past tense at bay) is what I object to.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That four is actually what it landed on doesn’t alter the possibility of what it could have landed on.

Before the throw
1 is a possibility and actuality is unknown because it’s yet to be
Same for 2 to 6

After the throw
The truth regarding possibilities shouldn’t have changed. If it wasn’t possible for 4 to be what it would land on, it couldn’t have become the actual number it landed on. It seems to me that if 3 wasn’t possible (as well as 1, 2, 5, and 6), it would have been impossible for those options to have occurred.

It was a possibility and it no longer is.

It is still true today that it was a possibility yesterday. The truth hasn't changed.

How are you going to prove there was really a possibility of landing a 6 yesterday when you know it was a 4 the die showed. It's done. Alea jacta est. You can consider current possibilities because you are ignorant of the future.

You may even talk of what happened in the past in terms of possibilities when you actually ignore what happened.

Thus, it's possible the murderer stalked its victim for weeks before committing the crime. It is still a possibility today that the murderer stalked its victim for weeks simply because you happen to still ignore today that it was not the case. Epistemological possibility. There's nothing else to it which is not metaphysical.

What is the use of a metaphysical possibility?
EB

 

[fast]

That four is actually what it landed on doesn’t alter the possibility of what it could have landed on.

Before the throw
1 is a possibility and actuality is unknown because it’s yet to be
Same for 2 to 6

After the throw
The truth regarding possibilities shouldn’t have changed. If it wasn’t possible for 4 to be what it would land on, it couldn’t have become the actual number it landed on. It seems to me that if 3 wasn’t possible (as well as 1, 2, 5, and 6), it would have been impossible for those options to have occurred.

It was a possibility and it no longer is.

It is still true today that it was a possibility yesterday. The truth hasn't changed.

How are you going to prove there was really a possibility of landing a 6 yesterday when you know it was a 4 the die showed. It's done. Alea jacta est. You can consider current possibilities because you are ignorant of the future.

You may even talk of what happened in the past in terms of possibilities when you actually ignore what happened.

Thus, it's possible the murderer stalked its victim for weeks before committing the crime. It is still a possibility today that the murderer stalked its victim for weeks simply because you happen to still ignore today that it was not the case. Epistemological possibility. There's nothing else to it which is not metaphysical.

What is the use of a metaphysical possibility?
EB

I’m looking at a quarter laying flat on the table. You do not know what is showing. What’s the odds that it shows heads? You would have me believe it’s either 0% or 100%.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I’m looking at a quarter laying flat on the table. You do not know what is showing. What’s the odds that it shows heads? You would have me believe it’s either 0% or 100%.

To me it's possible it's head and it's just as possible it's tail. To you, there's just one possibility left, the one which is actual. To me the odds are fifty-fifty. To you it is indeed either 0 or 100% (given ordinary circumstances).

Obviously, if you were to throw your quarter again, you'd be back to fifty-fifty. And if you think back to before you threw the last time, it was again fifty-fifty. It was. It no longer is because you're looking at it now and you know the outcome.

What's the problem for you? I don't get it. Where are the kind of possibilities you're talking about? The possibilities I am talking about are the ones I assume from the vantage point of my ignorance: the future, the past I didn't experience myself, the contents of your mind, God, alternative universes, the contents of Steve's pockets. A lot of possibilities there because I don't know it's not actual. Where I to look into all of these things, if at all possible (sic), most possibilities would vanish to leave place to what I would now know is actually there. Not a chance of that, though.

Note: If it was a possibility (I would look into your mind). It isn't a possibility because I know I can't look into your mind.

Of course, it's not even "know", although I keep saying it. It's really just what you believe. If you believe the die is fair, you will believe there are 6 possibilities. You can't ever know that, though. You have to cast the die again and again to make your empirical observations and revise your beliefs accordingly. As you revise your beliefs, you may come to believe there's no possibility for a 6. Either way, once the die is cast, there's just one possibility left, the one you're looking at because you will believe, and no, not even know, believe, that this is the actual situation.

You don't seem able to articulate the problem you feel there is. I have said all there is to say and it's not complicated. So, where's the problem for you there?
EB

 

[fast]

I’m looking at a quarter laying flat on the table. You do not know what is showing. What’s the odds that it shows heads? You would have me believe it’s either 0% or 100%.

To me it's possible it's head and it's just as possible it's tail. To you, there's just one possibility left, the one which is actual. To me the odds are fifty-fifty. To you it is indeed either 0 or 100% (given ordinary circumstances).

You’ve captured the problem but have dealt with it as if to say it’s subjective and knowledge dependent. I consider it objective and knowledge independent. It cannot both be possible and impossible simultaneously unless we’re distinguishing between types of possibilities.

 

[fast]

duplicate edited out