Chance

[Sophist]

By 'chances' I mean objective physical probabilities, like those of

radioactive atoms decaying in various time intervals. They are not

subjective, because they are independent of what we think; and they are

physical rather than merely epistemic, because they are not relative to

evidence. We need them to explain finite frequencies, like the

fractions of finite numbers of radioactive atoms which do decay in

various time intervals. I argue that chances so understood are

dispositions to produce so-called 'long run frequencies', and their

ontological status therefore depends on that of non-probabilistic

dispositions, such as solubility. I argue for a realist view of

dispositions in general and therefore of chances in particular.

----

 

I thought I should share the above abstract-- a paper that would be presented in the meeting of the Cambridge Moral Society this week; the weekly lecture.

[J.Lee]

We were just having a similar discussion in my Philosophy class.

 

Is the arguement, that Chance is limited? or the reason why Chances physical probality is as it is?

[Caano Geel]

who said that?

[Jamster]

Certainly a gaal would utter such rubish

[Viking]

What an irony!

[Jamster]

Viky how so old boy?

[Viking]

Will the real SMJ please stand up!