03 Feb '16 13:488 edits

(edit error;

the title of this thread was meant to be:

" causal and logical probability/proof/fact " )

I have noticed that people and science in general implicitly deal with two

When most people, including scientists, calculate probabilities for different outcomes, they often implicitly take no account of the logical possibilities and therefore the logical probability that the the natural laws, as they believe them to be so, are entirely as they believe them to be so. In other words, when they calculate probabilities, they typically treat that probability of them be wrong about what they believe to be the actual natural laws, to be exactly zero probability i.e. they assume they assumed natural law correctly. They implicitly

I call the typically more convenient type of probability of causal possibilities/impossibilities that takes

'

And I call the often less convenient type of probability but arguably more valid type of probability of either causal possibilities/impossibilities or logical possibilities/impossibilities that takes

'

Thus logical probabilities are arguably the only really 'true' probabilities as they don't make any unqualified assumption that we know natural law entirely correctly while causal probabilities, although generally better for more practical purposes, are just a convenient approximation of logical probabilities.

Also, when we speak of 'proof', there are two kinds of proof which I will give new names to here;

A proof that shows the causal probability, but not necessarily also the logical probability, of something, to be exactly 0 or 1, it is a

'

A proof that shows the logical probability, and therefore necessarily also the causal probability, of something, to be exactly 0 or 1, it is a

'

In addition;

Anything that has been causally proven is a

'

Anything that has been logically proven is a

'

OK;

So, when a scientists, say, using is assumed knowledge of the laws of gravity, calculates the probability of a planet having a certain orbit and finds that probability to be exactly 0 and then says he has 'proved' that it is 'impossible' for a planet to have that certain orbit, what he means is that he has 'causally proved' it causally impossible by proving it has a 'causally probability' of exactly 0. And now it may be a 'causal fact' that a planet cannot have that orbit.

But he has not 'logically proved' anything and the 'logical probability' is not an absolute probability of zero but rather a very close non-zero approximation to zero.

And it isn't a 'logical fact' that a planet cannot have that orbit.

Any criticisms; thoughts; comments?

the title of this thread was meant to be:

" causal and logical probability/proof/fact " )

I have noticed that people and science in general implicitly deal with two

*different*categories of probability with neither category currently having been formally identified nor have any name whatsoever, neither formal or informal. Thus I see usefulness in explicitly defining and naming these two categories which I will do here:When most people, including scientists, calculate probabilities for different outcomes, they often implicitly take no account of the logical possibilities and therefore the logical probability that the the natural laws, as they believe them to be so, are entirely as they believe them to be so. In other words, when they calculate probabilities, they typically treat that probability of them be wrong about what they believe to be the actual natural laws, to be exactly zero probability i.e. they assume they assumed natural law correctly. They implicitly

*have*to do this for very good practical reasons! To take into full account the logical possibility that they could be wrong about the relevant natural law by calculating the probabilities for that before calculating the probability of a causal possibility would generally be*extremely*arduous and mathematically complex and yet would typically make*very*little difference in practical terms to the numerical value of that calculated probability outputted for that causal possibility.I call the typically more convenient type of probability of causal possibilities/impossibilities that takes

*no*account of probabilities of what we think we know about natural law to be entirely correct'

**causal probability**'.And I call the often less convenient type of probability but arguably more valid type of probability of either causal possibilities/impossibilities or logical possibilities/impossibilities that takes

*full*account of probabilities of what we think we know about natural law to be entirely correct'

**logical probability**'.Thus logical probabilities are arguably the only really 'true' probabilities as they don't make any unqualified assumption that we know natural law entirely correctly while causal probabilities, although generally better for more practical purposes, are just a convenient approximation of logical probabilities.

Also, when we speak of 'proof', there are two kinds of proof which I will give new names to here;

A proof that shows the causal probability, but not necessarily also the logical probability, of something, to be exactly 0 or 1, it is a

'

**causal proof**'.A proof that shows the logical probability, and therefore necessarily also the causal probability, of something, to be exactly 0 or 1, it is a

'

**logical proof**'.In addition;

Anything that has been causally proven is a

'

**causally fact**'.Anything that has been logically proven is a

'

**logical fact**'.OK;

So, when a scientists, say, using is assumed knowledge of the laws of gravity, calculates the probability of a planet having a certain orbit and finds that probability to be exactly 0 and then says he has 'proved' that it is 'impossible' for a planet to have that certain orbit, what he means is that he has 'causally proved' it causally impossible by proving it has a 'causally probability' of exactly 0. And now it may be a 'causal fact' that a planet cannot have that orbit.

But he has not 'logically proved' anything and the 'logical probability' is not an absolute probability of zero but rather a very close non-zero approximation to zero.

And it isn't a 'logical fact' that a planet cannot have that orbit.

Any criticisms; thoughts; comments?