Hubbry Logo
Probability interpretationsProbability interpretationsMain
Open search
Probability interpretations
Community hub
Probability interpretations
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Probability interpretations
Probability interpretations
Probability interpretations
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The word "probability" has been used in a variety of ways since it was first applied to the mathematical study of games of chance. Does probability measure the real, physical, tendency of something to occur, or is it a measure of how strongly one believes it will occur, or does it draw on both these elements? In answering such questions, mathematicians interpret the probability values of probability theory.

There are two broad categories[1][a][2] of probability interpretations which can be called "physical" and "evidential" probabilities. Physical probabilities, which are also called objective or frequency probabilities, are associated with random physical systems such as roulette wheels, rolling dice and radioactive atoms. In such systems, a given type of event (such as a die yielding a six) tends to occur at a persistent rate, or "relative frequency", in a long run of trials. Physical probabilities either explain, or are invoked to explain, these stable frequencies. The two main kinds of theory of physical probability are frequentist accounts (such as those of Venn,[3] Reichenbach[4] and von Mises)[5] and propensity accounts (such as those of Popper, Miller, Giere and Fetzer).[6]

Evidential probability, also called Bayesian probability, can be assigned to any statement whatsoever, even when no random process is involved, as a way to represent its rational subjective plausibility, or the degree to which the statement is supported by the available evidence. On most accounts, evidential probabilities are considered to be rational degrees of belief, defined in terms of dispositions to gamble at certain odds. The four main evidential interpretations are the classical (e.g. Laplace's)[7] interpretation, the subjective interpretation (de Finetti[8] and Savage),[9] the epistemic or inductive interpretation (Ramsey,[10] Cox)[11] and the logical interpretation (Keynes[12] and Carnap).[13] There are also evidential interpretations of probability covering groups, which are often labelled as 'intersubjective' (proposed by Gillies[14] and Rowbottom).[6]

Some interpretations of probability are associated with approaches to statistical inference, including theories of estimation and hypothesis testing. The physical interpretation, for example, is taken by followers of "frequentist" statistical methods, such as Ronald Fisher[dubious – discuss], Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson. Statisticians of the opposing, Bayesian school typically accept the frequency interpretation when it makes sense (although not as a definition), but there is less agreement regarding physical probabilities. Bayesians consider the calculation of evidential probabilities to be both valid and necessary in statistics. This article, however, focuses on the interpretations of probability rather than theories of statistical inference.

The terminology of this topic is rather confusing, in part because probabilities are studied within a variety of academic fields. The word "frequentist" is especially tricky. To philosophers it refers to a particular theory of physical probability, one that has more or less been abandoned. To scientists, on the other hand, "frequentist probability" is just another name for physical (or objective) probability. Those who promote Bayesian inference view "frequentist statistics" as an approach to statistical inference that is based on the frequency interpretation of probability, usually relying on the law of large numbers and characterized by what is called 'Null Hypothesis Significance Testing' (NHST). Also the word "objective", as applied to probability, sometimes means exactly what "physical" means here, but is also used of evidential probabilities that are fixed by rational constraints, such as logical and epistemic probabilities.

It is unanimously agreed that statistics depends somehow on probability. But, as to what probability is and how it is connected with statistics, there has seldom been such complete disagreement and breakdown of communication since the Tower of Babel. Doubtless, much of the disagreement is merely terminological and would disappear under sufficiently sharp analysis.

— Savage, 1954, p. 2[9]

Philosophy

[edit]

The philosophy of probability presents problems chiefly in matters of epistemology and the uneasy interface between mathematical concepts and ordinary language as it is used by non-mathematicians. Probability theory is an established field of study in mathematics. It has its origins in correspondence discussing the mathematics of games of chance between Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat in the seventeenth century,[15] and was formalized and rendered axiomatic as a distinct branch of mathematics by Andrey Kolmogorov in the twentieth century. In axiomatic form, mathematical statements about probability theory carry the same sort of epistemological confidence within the philosophy of mathematics as are shared by other mathematical statements.[16][17]

The mathematical analysis originated in observations of the behaviour of game equipment such as playing cards and dice, which are designed specifically to introduce random and equalized elements; in mathematical terms, they are subjects of indifference. This is not the only way probabilistic statements are used in ordinary human language: when people say that "it will probably rain", they typically do not mean that the outcome of rain versus not-rain is a random factor that the odds currently favor; instead, such statements are perhaps better understood as qualifying their expectation of rain with a degree of confidence. Likewise, when it is written that "the most probable explanation" of the name of Ludlow, Massachusetts "is that it was named after Roger Ludlow", what is meant here is not that Roger Ludlow is favored by a random factor, but rather that this is the most plausible explanation of the evidence, which admits other, less likely explanations.

Thomas Bayes attempted to provide a logic that could handle varying degrees of confidence; as such, Bayesian probability is an attempt to recast the representation of probabilistic statements as an expression of the degree of confidence by which the beliefs they express are held.

Though probability initially had somewhat mundane motivations, its modern influence and use is widespread ranging from evidence-based medicine, through six sigma, all the way to the probabilistically checkable proof and the string theory landscape.

A summary of some interpretations of probability [2]
Classical Frequentist Subjective Propensity
Main hypothesis Principle of indifference Frequency of occurrence Degree of belief Degree of causal connection
Conceptual basis Hypothetical symmetry Past data and reference class Knowledge and intuition Present state of system
Conceptual approach Conjectural Empirical Subjective Metaphysical
Single case possible Yes No Yes Yes
Precise Yes No No Yes
Problems Ambiguity in principle of indifference Circular definition Reference class problem Disputed concept

Classical definition

[edit]
Main article: Classical definition of probability

The first attempt at mathematical rigour in the field of probability, championed by Pierre-Simon Laplace, is now known as the classical definition. Developed from studies of games of chance (such as rolling dice) it states that probability is shared equally between all the possible outcomes, provided these outcomes can be deemed equally likely.[1] (3.1)

The theory of chance consists in reducing all the events of the same kind to a certain number of cases equally possible, that is to say, to such as we may be equally undecided about in regard to their existence, and in determining the number of cases favorable to the event whose probability is sought. The ratio of this number to that of all the cases possible is the measure of this probability, which is thus simply a fraction whose numerator is the number of favorable cases and whose denominator is the number of all the cases possible.

— Pierre-Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities[7]

The classical definition of probability works well for situations with only a finite number of equally-likely outcomes.

This can be represented mathematically as follows: If a random experiment can result in N mutually exclusive and equally likely outcomes and if NA of these outcomes result in the occurrence of the event A, the probability of A is defined by

There are two clear limitations to the classical definition.[18] Firstly, it is applicable only to situations in which there is only a 'finite' number of possible outcomes. But some important random experiments, such as tossing a coin until it shows heads, give rise to an infinite set of outcomes. And secondly, it requires an a priori determination that all possible outcomes are equally likely without falling in a trap of circular reasoning by relying on the notion of probability. (In using the terminology "we may be equally undecided", Laplace assumed, by what has been called the "principle of insufficient reason", that all possible outcomes are equally likely if there is no known reason to assume otherwise, for which there is no obvious justification.[19][20])

Frequentism

[edit]
Main article: Frequency probability
For frequentists, the probability of the ball landing in any pocket can be determined only by repeated trials in which the observed result converges to the underlying probability in the long run.

Frequentists posit that the probability of an event is its relative frequency over time,[1] (3.4) i.e., its relative frequency of occurrence after repeating a process a large number of times under similar conditions. This is also known as aleatory probability. The events are assumed to be governed by some random physical phenomena, which are either phenomena that are predictable, in principle, with sufficient information (see determinism); or phenomena which are essentially unpredictable. Examples of the first kind include tossing dice or spinning a roulette wheel; an example of the second kind is radioactive decay. In the case of tossing a fair coin, frequentists say that the probability of getting a heads is 1/2, not because there are two equally likely outcomes but because repeated series of large numbers of trials demonstrate that the empirical frequency converges to the limit 1/2 as the number of trials goes to infinity.

If we denote by the number of occurrences of an event in trials, then if we say that .

The frequentist view has its own problems. It is of course impossible to actually perform an infinity of repetitions of a random experiment to determine the probability of an event. But if only a finite number of repetitions of the process are performed, different relative frequencies will appear in different series of trials. If these relative frequencies are to define the probability, the probability will be slightly different every time it is measured. But the real probability should be the same every time. If we acknowledge the fact that we only can measure a probability with some error of measurement attached, we still get into problems as the error of measurement can only be expressed as a probability, the very concept we are trying to define. This renders even the frequency definition circular; see for example “What is the Chance of an Earthquake?”[21]

Subjectivism

[edit]
Main article: Bayesian probability

Subjectivists, also known as Bayesians or followers of epistemic probability, give the notion of probability a subjective status by regarding it as a measure of the 'rational degree of belief' of the individual assessing the uncertainty of a particular situation. Epistemic or subjective probability is sometimes called credence, as opposed to the term chance for a propensity probability.

Some examples of epistemic probability are to assign a probability to the proposition that a proposed law of physics is true or to determine how probable it is that a suspect committed a crime, based on the evidence presented.

The use of Bayesian probability raises the philosophical debate as to whether it can contribute valid justifications of belief. Bayesians point to the work of Ramsey[10] (p 182) and de Finetti[8] (p 103) as proving that subjective beliefs must follow the laws of probability if they are to be coherent (rational).[22]

Evidence casts doubt that individual humans routinely apply coherent beliefs[23][24], indicating that they often do not adhere to Bayesian probability.

The use of Bayesian probability involves specifying a prior probability. This may be obtained from consideration of whether the required prior probability is greater or lesser than a reference probability[clarification needed] associated with an urn model or a thought experiment. The issue is that for a given problem, multiple thought experiments could apply, and choosing one is sometimes a matter of judgement: different people may assign different prior probabilities, known as the reference class problem. The "sunrise problem" provides an example.

Propensity

[edit]
Main article: Propensity probability

Propensity theorists think of probability as a physical propensity, or disposition, or tendency of a given type of physical situation to yield an outcome of a certain kind or to yield a long run relative frequency of such an outcome.[25] This kind of objective probability is sometimes called 'chance'.

Propensities, or chances, are not relative frequencies, but purported causes of the observed stable relative frequencies. Propensities are invoked to explain why repeating a certain kind of experiment will generate given outcome types at persistent rates, which are known as propensities or chances. Frequentists are unable to take this approach, since relative frequencies do not exist for single tosses of a coin, but only for large ensembles or collectives (see "single case possible" in the table above).[2] In contrast, a propensitist is able to use the law of large numbers to explain the behaviour of long-run frequencies. This law, which is a consequence of the axioms of probability, says that if (for example) a coin is tossed repeatedly many times, in such a way that its probability of landing heads is the same on each toss, and the outcomes are probabilistically independent, then the relative frequency of heads will be close to the probability of heads on each single toss. This law allows that stable long-run frequencies are a manifestation of invariant single-case probabilities. In addition to explaining the emergence of stable relative frequencies, the idea of propensity is motivated by the desire to make sense of single-case probability attributions in quantum mechanics, such as the probability of decay of a particular atom at a particular time.

The main challenge facing propensity theories is to say exactly what propensity means. (And then, of course, to show that propensity thus defined has the required properties.) At present, unfortunately, none of the well-recognised accounts of propensity comes close to meeting this challenge.

A propensity theory of probability was given by Charles Sanders Peirce.[26][27][28][29] A later propensity theory was proposed by philosopher Karl Popper, who had only slight acquaintance with the writings of C. S. Peirce, however.[26][27] Popper noted that the outcome of a physical experiment is produced by a certain set of "generating conditions". When we repeat an experiment, as the saying goes, we really perform another experiment with a (more or less) similar set of generating conditions. To say that a set of generating conditions has propensity p of producing the outcome E means that those exact conditions, if repeated indefinitely, would produce an outcome sequence in which E occurred with limiting relative frequency p. For Popper then, a deterministic experiment would have propensity 0 or 1 for each outcome, since those generating conditions would have same outcome on each trial. In other words, non-trivial propensities (those that differ from 0 and 1) only exist for genuinely nondeterministic experiments.

A number of other philosophers, including David Miller and Donald A. Gillies, have proposed propensity theories somewhat similar to Popper's.

Other propensity theorists (e.g. Ronald Giere[30]) do not explicitly define propensities at all, but rather see propensity as defined by the theoretical role it plays in science. They argued, for example, that physical magnitudes such as electrical charge cannot be explicitly defined either, in terms of more basic things, but only in terms of what they do (such as attracting and repelling other electrical charges). In a similar way, propensity is whatever fills the various roles that physical probability plays in science.

What roles does physical probability play in science? What are its properties? One central property of chance is that, when known, it constrains rational belief to take the same numerical value. David Lewis called this the Principal Principle,[1] (3.3 & 3.5) a term that philosophers have mostly adopted. For example, suppose you are certain that a particular biased coin has propensity 0.32 to land heads every time it is tossed. What is then the correct price for a gamble that pays $1 if the coin lands heads, and nothing otherwise? According to the Principal Principle, the fair price is 32 cents.

Logical, epistemic, and inductive probability

[edit]
Main article: Probabilistic logic

It is widely recognized that the term "probability" is sometimes used in contexts where it has nothing to do with physical randomness. Consider, for example, the claim that the extinction of the dinosaurs was probably caused by a large meteorite hitting the earth. Statements such as "Hypothesis H is probably true" have been interpreted to mean that the (presently available) empirical evidence (E, say) supports H to a high degree. This degree of support of H by E has been called the logical, epistemic, or inductive probability of H given E.

The differences between these interpretations are rather small, and may seem inconsequential. One of the main points of disagreement lies in the relation between probability and belief. Logical probabilities are conceived (for example in Keynes' Treatise on Probability[12]) to be objective, logical relations between propositions (or sentences), and hence not to depend in any way upon belief. They are degrees of (partial) entailment, or degrees of logical consequence, not degrees of belief. (They do, nevertheless, dictate proper degrees of belief, as is discussed below.) Frank P. Ramsey, on the other hand, was skeptical about the existence of such objective logical relations and argued that (evidential) probability is "the logic of partial belief".[10] (p 157) In other words, Ramsey held that epistemic probabilities simply are degrees of rational belief, rather than being logical relations that merely constrain degrees of rational belief.

Another point of disagreement concerns the uniqueness of evidential probability, relative to a given state of knowledge. Rudolf Carnap held, for example, that logical principles always determine a unique logical probability for any statement, relative to any body of evidence. Ramsey, by contrast, thought that while degrees of belief are subject to some rational constraints (such as, but not limited to, the axioms of probability) these constraints usually do not determine a unique value. Rational people, in other words, may differ somewhat in their degrees of belief, even if they all have the same information.

Prediction

[edit]
Main article: Predictive inference

An alternative account of probability emphasizes the role of prediction – predicting future observations on the basis of past observations, not on unobservable parameters. In its modern form, it is mainly in the Bayesian vein. This was the main function of probability before the 20th century,[31] but fell out of favor compared to the parametric approach, which modeled phenomena as a physical system that was observed with error, such as in celestial mechanics.

The modern predictive approach was pioneered by Bruno de Finetti, with the central idea of exchangeability – that future observations should behave like past observations.[31] This view came to the attention of the Anglophone world with the 1974 translation of de Finetti's book,[31] and has since been propounded by such statisticians as Seymour Geisser.

Axiomatic probability

[edit]

The mathematics of probability can be developed on an entirely axiomatic basis that is independent of any interpretation: see the articles on probability theory and probability axioms for a detailed treatment.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Probability interpretations

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Probability interpretations refer to the diverse philosophical and conceptual frameworks that explain the meaning of probability in mathematical, statistical, and scientific contexts, addressing whether probability represents objective features of the world, such as frequencies or propensities, or subjective degrees of , and how these views reconcile with Kolmogorov's axiomatic foundations of . These interpretations have evolved since the , influencing fields from statistics to , and remain a subject of ongoing debate due to challenges like the problem of single-case probabilities and the reference class problem. The classical interpretation, pioneered by mathematicians like in the early 19th century, defines probability as the ratio of favorable outcomes to equally possible total outcomes, assuming symmetry in games of chance or ignorance of underlying mechanisms. For instance, the probability of drawing a specific card from a fair deck is 1/52, based on the principle that all outcomes are equiprobable a priori. This view, rooted in 17th-century developments by Pascal and Bernoulli, excels in combinatorial problems but faces criticisms from Bertrand's paradoxes, which show inconsistencies in defining "equally possible" cases, especially in continuous spaces. In contrast, the frequentist interpretation treats probability as the limiting relative frequency of an event in an infinite sequence of repeated trials, emphasizing empirical long-run frequencies over a priori assumptions. Key proponents include and , who formalized it through concepts like random sequences satisfying stochastic . For example, the probability of heads on a flip is the proportion of heads in infinitely many flips approaching 0.5. While this provides an objective basis for , it struggles with non-repeatable events, such as one-off historical occurrences, and the ambiguity of selecting an appropriate reference class of trials. The subjective or Bayesian interpretation views probability as a measure of personal degree of belief, calibrated by coherence conditions like those from Dutch Book arguments, allowing rational agents to assign probabilities based on their evidence and priors. Developed by Frank Ramsey and in the 1920s and 1950s, it posits that probabilities reflect betting odds at which one would be indifferent to buying or selling a wager. Updating beliefs via incorporates new data, making it powerful for , though critics argue it risks arbitrariness without objective constraints on initial priors. Other notable views include the logical interpretation, which sees probability as the objective degree of partial entailment or confirmation between evidence and hypotheses, as articulated by and ; and the propensity interpretation, proposed by , which conceives probability as a physical disposition or tendency inherent in chance setups, applicable to both repeatable and single events like . These interpretations highlight the pluralism in , where no single view dominates, and hybrid approaches, such as objective Bayesianism, seek to blend subjective credences with evidential constraints for greater rigor.

Overview and Philosophical Foundations

Core Concepts

Probability interpretations provide philosophical and mathematical frameworks for assigning meaning to statements about probability, such as what it signifies when the probability of an event A is assigned a value like 0.5. These interpretations seek to clarify whether such a probability represents an objective feature of the world, a subjective degree of , or some hybrid, thereby addressing the foundational question of how to understand in reasoning and prediction. A key distinction in these interpretations lies between aleatory uncertainty, which arises from inherent or chance in physical processes independent of human , and epistemic uncertainty, which stems from incomplete or lack of about a deterministic . Aleatory probability captures the objective tendency of outcomes in repeatable experiments or random phenomena, such as the flip of a , while epistemic probability reflects degrees of rational or confidence given available . This underscores the tension between viewing probability as a property of the external world versus a measure of personal or collective ignorance. The major families of interpretations broadly divide into objective and subjective categories. Objective interpretations treat probability as a real, mind-independent attribute, encompassing classical approaches based on equipossible outcomes, frequentist views grounded in long-run relative frequencies, and propensity theories that posit probabilities as dispositional tendencies of physical systems. In contrast, subjective interpretations regard probability as a measure of or , with Bayesian emphasizing personal credences updated via and logical probability seeking objective constraints on rational degrees of . These families highlight ongoing debates about whether probability describes empirical regularities or epistemic states. Key developments in probability interpretations unfolded from the , when early ideas emerged in correspondence among mathematicians addressing games of chance, through 18th- and 19th-century expansions into and laws of , to 20th-century axiomatizations and philosophical refinements that solidified diverse interpretive traditions. Providing a neutral mathematical foundation for these interpretations, the Kolmogorov axioms define probability as a measure on event spaces satisfying non-negativity, normalization to 1 for the , and countable additivity for disjoint events.

Historical Context

The origins of probability interpretations trace back to the 17th century, when problems arising from prompted early mathematical developments. In 1654, and exchanged correspondence addressing the "," which involved dividing stakes in an interrupted , laying the groundwork for systematic approaches to chance and expectation. This exchange marked a pivotal shift from ad hoc calculations to a more structured theory, influenced by the era's philosophical tensions between and . By the early 19th century, formalized the classical interpretation in his 1812 work Théorie Analytique des Probabilités, defining probability as the ratio of favorable cases to all possible equally likely cases, assuming a uniform distribution over outcomes. This approach dominated for decades, providing a deterministic foundation for applications in astronomy and physics. However, as empirical data from repeated trials became more prominent, critiques emerged regarding its reliance on a priori equiprobability. In the late 19th century, the frequentist interpretation gained traction as an alternative, emphasizing probabilities as limits of relative frequencies in long-run experiments. advanced this view in his 1866 book The Logic of Chance, arguing for an empirical basis derived from observable sequences rather than abstract possibilities. Similarly, Johannes von Kries contributed in his 1886 Die Principien der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung, refining frequentism by distinguishing between objective chance and subjective judgment in probabilistic reasoning. The 20th century saw a proliferation of interpretations amid growing applications in science and . Andrey Kolmogorov established a rigorous axiomatic framework in 1933 with Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung, defining probability measure-theoretically without committing to a specific interpretation, which provided a neutral mathematical basis for diverse views. John Maynard Keynes introduced logical probability in his 1921 A Treatise on Probability, conceiving it as a degree of partial entailment between and , bridging objective logic and evidential support. In the and , Frank Ramsey and developed subjective interpretations, with Ramsey's 1926 essay "Truth and Probability" framing probabilities as degrees of belief measurable via betting behavior, and de Finetti's 1937 "La Prévision" extending this to personal coherence in forecasts. Meanwhile, the rise of in the and , with its inherent , spurred objective alternatives like Karl Popper's propensity theory, which by the 1950s portrayed probabilities as physical tendencies or dispositions of systems rather than frequencies or beliefs.

Objective Interpretations

Classical Probability

The classical interpretation of probability, formalized by in the early 19th century, defines probability as the ratio of the number of favorable outcomes to the total number of possible outcomes in a scenario where all outcomes are assumed to be equally likely. In Laplace's words, "The ratio of this number to that of all possible cases is the measure of this probability, which is thus only a whose numerator is the number of favourable cases, and whose denominator is the number of all possible cases." This approach treats probability as an objective measure derived combinatorially from symmetry in finite, discrete sample spaces, without reliance on empirical observation. The formula for the probability P(A)P(A) of an event AA under this interpretation is thus P(A)=∣{favorable cases for A}∣∣{total possible cases}∣,P(A) = \frac{|\{ \text{favorable cases for } A \}|}{|\{ \text{total possible cases} \}|}, where the consists of mutually exclusive and exhaustive outcomes presumed equiprobable due to a priori , such as in unbiased physical setups. Historical examples illustrate this clearly: the probability of heads on a flip is 12\frac{1}{2}, as there is one favorable outcome out of two equally likely possibilities; for a standard six-sided die, the probability of rolling an even number is 36=12\frac{3}{6} = \frac{1}{2}, three favorable faces (2, 4, 6) out of six; and drawing a specific from a shuffled deck of 52 cards yields 1352=14\frac{13}{52} = \frac{1}{4}, assuming no in the shuffle. This interpretation rests on key assumptions: the must be finite and well-defined, with an a priori ensuring no outcome is more likely than another absent evidence of bias, often justified by the principle of indifference. Early precursors, including Bernoulli's combinatorial work in (1713), laid groundwork by exploring ratios in games of chance but highlighted limitations when outcomes deviate from equal likelihood. Critiques of the classical approach center on its failure in spaces without finite, equiprobable cases, rendering it inapplicable to continuous or asymmetric scenarios. For instance, (1777), which estimates π\pi by dropping needles on lined paper, involves an infinite continuum of positions and angles, defying direct combinatorial counting of equally likely outcomes. Bernoulli's 1713 discussions in provide an early counterexample by demonstrating cases, such as certain lotteries or natural events, where assumed equal likelihood does not hold, necessitating alternative methods like empirical frequencies. This spurred transitions to frequentist approaches for handling real-world irregularities beyond symmetric finite sets.

Frequentist Approach

The frequentist interpretation defines the probability of an event as the limiting relative with which it occurs in an infinite sequence of independent trials conducted under identical conditions. This approach treats probability as an objective property of the experimental setup, grounded in empirical rather than subjective or a priori assumptions. Formally, for an event AA, the probability is given by P(A)=lim⁡n→∞nAn,P(A) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{n_A}{n}, where nn is the total number of trials and nAn_A is the number of trials in which AA occurs. The foundations of this interpretation were laid by in his 1866 work The Logic of Chance, where he advocated for probability as the ratio of favorable outcomes in a long series of trials, emphasizing empirical derivation over theoretical equiprobability. further formalized the approach in 1919, introducing axioms to define randomness in sequences: the axiom of convergence, requiring that the limiting relative frequency exists for any event; and the axiom of randomness, ensuring that the limiting frequency remains the same for every subsequence selected by a fixed rule, which implies independence across trials. These axioms address the need for in the sequence, allowing probabilities to be well-defined for repeatable experiments. A practical example is estimating the bias of a coin: if heads appears in 52 out of 100 flips, the frequentist would approximate P(heads)P(\text{heads}) as 0.52, refining this estimate toward the true limiting frequency as the number of flips increases indefinitely. This estimation is justified by the law of large numbers, which states that the sample average converges to the expected value as the number of trials grows; Chebyshev's inequality provides a probabilistic bound on the deviation, showing that for any ϵ>0\epsilon > 0, the probability of the average deviating from the mean by more than ϵ\epsilon is at most σ2/(nϵ2)\sigma^2 / (n \epsilon^2), where σ2\sigma^2 is the variance and nn the sample size. The strengths of the frequentist approach lie in its objectivity and testability through statistical procedures, such as confidence intervals that guarantee coverage in repeated sampling, making it suitable for scientific based on . However, it faces limitations when applied to unique or non-repeatable events, such as the probability of rain on a specific tomorrow, where no infinite sequence of identical trials exists to compute the limiting frequency. In cases of symmetric outcomes, like a fair die, this interpretation aligns with classical probability by yielding equal frequencies for each face.

Propensity Theory

The propensity theory interprets probability as an objective, physical or tendency inherent in a chance-setup, rather than a measure of or subjective . In this view, the probability of an outcome is the propensity of the setup to produce that outcome under specified conditions, analogous to a biased die having a dispositional tendency to land on certain faces more often than others. This interpretation treats probabilities as real properties of physical systems, akin to or charge, that govern the likelihood of events even in singular instances. The theory was primarily developed by between 1957 and 1959, building on earlier ideas from around 1910, who described probability in terms of a "would-be" or tendency in physical objects, such as a die's disposition to fall in particular ways. Popper extended this to distinguish multi-level propensities: simple propensities in basic setups like coin flips, and complex propensities emerging in hierarchical systems, such as populations or quantum fields, where interactions create layered tendencies. Unlike frequentist approaches, which require infinite repetitions to define probability, the propensity view applies directly to unique events, making it suitable for non-repeatable scenarios. Representative examples include quantum mechanical events, such as the propensity of an electron in a magnetic field to have spin up or down along a given axis, where the setup's physical conditions determine the outcome probability without repeatable trials. In biology, evolutionary fitness is understood as a propensity of an organism or genotype to survive and reproduce in a specific environment, reflecting an objective tendency rather than realized counts. In repeatable cases, propensities can align with long-run frequencies as limits of these dispositions. Formalization efforts have linked propensities to processes, modeling them as measures of al strengths in probabilistic frameworks, though no exists due to context-dependence in complex systems. Critics argue that propensities are unfalsifiable, as they cannot be directly observed or tested independently of outcomes, and face measurement challenges in isolating the disposition from factors. This interpretation upholds by positing objective probabilities even for irreducible indeterminacies, such as those in , where Niels Bohr's 1928 discussions of the quantum postulate highlighted inherent uncertainties that propensities can accommodate as physical realities.

Subjective and Epistemic Interpretations

Bayesian Subjectivism

Bayesian subjectivism interprets probability as a measure of an individual's rational degree of or personal credence in a , rather than an objective or physical propensity. This view posits that probabilities are inherently , reflecting the agent's partial , which must satisfy coherence conditions to avoid rational inconsistencies. Central to this interpretation is the Dutch book theorem, which demonstrates that incoherent degrees of —those violating the axioms of probability—can lead to a sure loss in betting scenarios, as formalized by Frank P. Ramsey in his 1926 essay "Truth and Probability" and extended by in his 1937 work "La prévision: ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives." These theorems ensure that subjective probabilities behave like objective ones under the constraints of rational decision-making, linking to expected utility in betting contexts. The updating of these subjective beliefs occurs via Bayes' theorem, which combines prior probabilities with new evidence to yield posterior probabilities. Formulated posthumously from Thomas Bayes' 1763 essay "An Essay towards solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances," the theorem states: P(H∣E)=P(E∣H)P(H)P(E),P(H \mid E) = \frac{P(E \mid H) P(H)}{P(E)}, where P(H)P(H) is the prior probability of hypothesis HH, P(E∣H)P(E \mid H) is the likelihood of evidence EE given HH, and P(E)P(E) is the marginal probability of EE. Pierre-Simon Laplace independently developed and applied this rule in the late 18th century for inverse inference problems, such as estimating causes from effects in astronomical and demographic data. In the modern era, Leonard J. Savage integrated this framework with decision theory in his 1954 book "The Foundations of Statistics," axiomatizing subjective probability as utilities derived from preferences under uncertainty. A practical example of Bayesian updating is revising a forecast : suppose an individual holds a prior credence of 30% that it will tomorrow based on seasonal patterns; upon observing dark clouds ( with a likelihood of 80% under rain but only 20% otherwise), the rises to approximately 63%, calculated via . In medical testing, subjective priors play a key role, such as when a assigns a low (e.g., 1%) to a for a low-risk ; a positive test result (with known ) then updates this to a posterior that informs , though the choice of prior can vary by expert judgment. This interpretation's strengths include its ability to assign probabilities to unique events without repeatable trials, enabling for one-off hypotheses like outcomes, unlike frequentist methods that rely on long-run frequencies. However, critics highlight the subjectivity of priors, which can introduce if not chosen carefully, raising concerns about inter-subjective agreement and objectivity in scientific applications.

Logical Probability

Logical probability interprets probability as an objective measure of the degree to which evidence partially entails or supports a , representing the strength of the evidential relation in a logical sense. This view treats probability not as a subjective or empirical , but as a relation inherent in the logical structure between propositions, akin to partial entailment where full entailment corresponds to probability 1 and no support to 0. formalized this in his 1921 work, arguing that such probabilities are uniquely determined by the given evidence, independent of personal beliefs. later developed it within inductive logic, defining logical probability as the degree of a receives from evidence via a between sentences in a . The framework of logical probability is rooted in inductive logic, which extends deductive logic to handle incomplete evidence and uncertainty. Carnap proposed a continuum of inductive methods based on similarity assumptions among predicates, parameterized by λ, where λ controls the balance between prior logical structure and empirical data; low λ values emphasize observed frequencies, while high λ values prioritize logical symmetry across possible states. This λ-parameter family allows for a range of confirmation functions, all satisfying basic logical constraints like additivity and normalization, but differing in how they weigh generalizations versus specifics. The approach aims to provide a rational basis for inductive inference without relying on long-run frequencies or personal priors. A classic example is estimating the probability that "all swans are white" given observations of white swans in various locations. Under logical probability, the evidence provides partial support for the , but the exact degree depends on the inductive method chosen; for instance, Carnap's framework yields a value between 0 and 1, constrained by the logical structure of the language and observations, yet not uniquely fixed without specifying λ. This illustrates how logical probability quantifies evidential support for universal hypotheses, treating each new white swan as incrementally strengthening the entailment without ever reaching certainty absent exhaustive . Key developments include Frank P. Ramsey's 1926 critique, which argued that logical relations like Keynes described are not objectively determinate and instead reflect subjective degrees of , shifting emphasis toward a subjective interpretation. , in his 1934 work on scientific discovery, rejected logical probability's inductive core in favor of falsification, contending that probabilities cannot confirm theories but only test them through potential refutation. In modern epistemic probability, this evolves into viewing probabilities as graded beliefs justified solely by available evidence, maintaining an objective evidential basis while allowing for rational updates. Cox's 1946 theorem bridges this to Bayesian approaches by deriving probabilistic rules from qualitative conditions on plausible inference, though without endorsing subjectivity. Critiques highlight the non-uniqueness of logical probabilities, as Carnap's λ-continuum demonstrates multiple valid methods yielding different values for the same , undermining claims of a singular objective measure. Additionally, these probabilities becomes intractable for complex in realistic languages, due to the in state descriptions required.

Formal and Applied Frameworks

Axiomatic Foundations

The axiomatic foundations of probability theory were established by Andrey Kolmogorov in his 1933 monograph Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung, providing a rigorous mathematical framework independent of any specific philosophical interpretation. This approach treats probability as a function PP defined on a collection of subsets of a sample space Ω\Omega, satisfying three fundamental axioms. The first is non-negativity: for any event EE, P(E)≥0P(E) \geq 0. The second is normalization: the probability of the entire sample space is P(Ω)=1P(\Omega) = 1. The third is finite additivity: for any two disjoint events E1E_1 and E2E_2, P(E1∪E2)=P(E1)+P(E2)P(E_1 \cup E_2) = P(E_1) + P(E_2). Kolmogorov extended this to countable additivity, stating that for a countable collection of pairwise disjoint events {En}n=1∞\{E_n\}_{n=1}^\infty, P(⋃n=1∞En)=∑n=1∞P(En)P\left(\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty E_n\right) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty P(E_n). From these axioms, several key properties follow directly. The probability of the impossible event, the ∅\emptyset, is derived as P(∅)=0P(\emptyset) = 0, since ∅\emptyset is disjoint from Ω\Omega and their union is Ω\Omega, yielding P(∅)+P(Ω)=P(Ω)P(\emptyset) + P(\Omega) = P(\Omega), so P(∅)+1=1P(\emptyset) + 1 = 1. Countable additivity ensures the framework handles infinite sequences of events consistently, preventing paradoxes in limiting cases. This axiomatic structure is embedded in measure theory, where a is formally defined as a triple (Ω,Σ,P)(\Omega, \Sigma, P): Ω\Omega is the , Σ\Sigma is a σ\sigma-algebra of measurable events (closed under countable unions, intersections, and complements), and PP is a probability measure on Σ\Sigma satisfying the axioms. The neutrality of Kolmogorov's axioms lies in their purely formal nature, allowing the probability function PP to represent diverse concepts across interpretations without endorsing any particular one—for instance, long-run frequencies in the frequentist view or degrees of belief in the Bayesian approach. This interpretation-agnostic foundation has had profound historical impact, standardizing after the 1930s and paving the way for advancements in modern statistics, stochastic processes, and applied fields. It has also influenced extensions, such as in quantum probability spaces where non-commutative measures adapt the axioms to Hilbert spaces.

Inductive and Predictive Uses

Inductive probability extends logical approaches to generalize from observed samples to broader conclusions, particularly through rules that justify extrapolating frequencies to limits. Hans Reichenbach's "straight rule," introduced in his 1938 work, posits that the relative frequency in a sample provides the best inductive estimate for the limit frequency in an infinite sequence, offering a pragmatic solution to the by assuming convergence if any method succeeds. This rule underpins inductive inferences in empirical sciences, where limited must inform generalizations without assuming underlying distributions. In predictive applications, probability interpretations facilitate forecasting future events by quantifying uncertainty. The frequentist approach employs confidence intervals to predict outcomes, interpreting them as ranges that would contain the true parameter in 95% of repeated samples under long-run frequency coverage. Bayesian methods, conversely, use posterior distributions to derive predictive probabilities for specific future events, integrating prior beliefs with data to update forecasts probabilistically. These tools enable practical predictions, such as estimating election outcomes or equipment failures, by bridging observed data to anticipated scenarios. Examples illustrate the predictive utility across interpretations. In machine learning, Bayesian networks model joint probabilities over variables to predict outcomes like disease diagnosis or fault detection, as formalized in Judea Pearl's seminal framework for plausible inference. For weather modeling, the propensity interpretation assigns objective probabilities to outcomes in chaotic systems, capturing the inherent tendencies of turbulent dynamics to produce specific patterns despite sensitivity to initial conditions. Scientific hypothesis testing further applies these, with frequentist p-values assessing evidence against null models and Bayesian factors comparing predictive support for competing theories. Debates between frequentist and Bayesian approaches have shaped 20th-century , particularly in contexts like markets and . Frequentists emphasized long-run error rates for robust interval forecasts, while Bayesians advocated updating beliefs for tailored predictions, fueling "statistics wars" over methods' reliability in uncertain environments. These tensions highlighted trade-offs, with frequentism favoring objectivity in repeatable settings and Bayesianism excelling in incorporating for one-off forecasts. Modern extensions integrate multiple interpretations through methods to enhance forecast robustness. By averaging predictions from frequentist and Bayesian models, ensembles reduce variance and bias, as seen in climate modeling where Bayesian model averaging combines outputs for improved . This axiomatic foundation supports computational implementations across diverse predictive tasks.

References

  1. http://fitelson.org/269/Hajek_IOP.pdf
  2. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18062/7/Cambridge%20Element_Philosophy%20of%20Probability%26Statistical%20Modelling_v4.pdf
  3. https://academic.oup.com/book/9779/chapter/156975320
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832096000774
  5. https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/Real_World/ale_epi.html
  6. https://cdn.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/3940974/ConceptsOfProbability_1981.pdf
  7. https://www.aps.org/apsnews/2009/07/pascal-letters-fermat-points
  8. https://www.phil.cmu.edu/projects/carnap/editorial/latex_pdf/1953-8.pdf
  9. https://www.siam.org/publications/siam-news/articles/john-venn-the-man-behind-the-diagrams/
  10. https://projecteuclid.org/journals/statistical-science/volume-21/issue-1/The-Sources-of-Kolmogorovs-Grundbegriffe/10.1214/088342305000000467.pdf
  11. https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/kolmogorov_foundations.pdf
  12. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/32625/32625-pdf.pdf
  13. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ramsey/
  14. https://sites.socsci.uci.edu/~bskyrms/bio/readings/bruno_definetti_subjective_probability.pdf
  15. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/
  16. https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/venn/
  17. https://projecteuclid.org/ebooks/institute-of-mathematical-statistics-lecture-notes-monograph-series/Statistics-probability-and-game-theory/chapter/Randomness-and-foundations-of-probability--von-Mises-axiomatisation-of/10.1214/lnms/1215453582.pdf
  18. https://www.probabilitycourse.com/chapter7/7_1_1_law_of_large_numbers.php
  19. https://sph.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/112/2013/07/greenberg.1.calbayes.pdf
  20. http://academic.uprm.edu/wrolke/esma4002/bayes.htm
  21. https://www.pasqualecirillo.eu/resources/Popper_1959.pdf
  22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/686220
  23. https://dial.uclouvain.be/pr/boreal/object/boreal%253A250437/datastream/PDF_01/view
  24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/187048
  25. https://suppescorpus.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj32751/files/media/file/propensity_representations_of_probability_265.pdf
  26. http://fitelson.org/confirmation/21prop-web.pdf
  27. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-popper/poppers-contributions-to-the-theory-of-probability-and-its-interpretation/503AEBC9DA9243886E0A12CAA77356FE
  28. http://fitelson.org/probability/ramsey.pdf
  29. https://web.mit.edu/6.435/www/deFinetti37.pdf
  30. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstl.1763.0053
  31. https://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/~loredo/bayes/L90-LaplaceToSN1987A-scan.pdf
  32. https://gwern.net/doc/statistics/decision/1972-savage-foundationsofstatistics.pdf
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10491529/
  34. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/18-05-introduction-to-probability-and-statistics-spring-2022/mit18_05_s22_class20-prep.pdf
  35. https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/probability/pdf/Keynes%2520Treatise%2520Probability%25201921.pdf
  36. http://fitelson.org/confirmation/carnap_logical_foundations_of_probability.pdf
  37. https://www.phil.cmu.edu/projects/carnap/editorial/latex_pdf/1952-1.pdf
  38. https://philotextes.info/spip/IMG/pdf/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
  39. http://www.stephanhartmann.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/HHL10_Galavotti.pdf
  40. http://www.stats.org.uk/cox-theorems/VanHorn2003.pdf
  41. https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/jonw/files/2015/04/Williamson.pdf
  42. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40509-025-00375-6
  43. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-021-03269-3
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6630113/
  45. https://www.bayesrulesbook.com/chapter-8
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780080514895/probabilistic-reasoning-in-intelligent-systems
  47. https://www.colorado.edu/amath/sites/default/files/attached-files/efron.pdf
  48. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/21/9/2007jcli1619.1.xml
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.