Three approaches are analysed—frequencies, propensities or degrees of belief, and a fourth is proposed, degree of support:

… our four theories offer divergent advice on how to figure out the values of probabilities. The first three interpretations (frequency, propensity

and confidence) try to make probabilities things we can observe – through counting, experimentation or introspection. By contrast, degrees of supportseem to be what philosophers call ‘abstract entities’ – neither in the world nor in our minds. While we know that a coin is symmetrical by observation, we know that the proposition ‘this coin is symmetrical’ supports the propositions ‘this coin lands heads’ and ‘this coin lands tails’ to equal degrees in the same way we know that ‘this coin lands heads’ entails ‘this coin lands heads or tails’: by thinking.Nevin Climenhaga, “The concept of probability is not as simple as you think” atAeon

Hmmm. “Thinking” is a risky strategy suggestion in a world where consciousness is supposed to be an illusion or else a material thing —unless, of course, your coffee mug has it too.

No legerdemain around probability is going to make most naturalism (nature is all there is, often called “materialism) claims true. But not for lack of trying.

*See also:* Probability of a single protein forming by chance

and

Confusing Probability: The “Every-Sequence-Is-Equally-Improbable” Argument

Follow UD News at Twitter!