Thread 16734420

There is no such thing as a probability. Something either happens or it doesn’t happen. All statistical models don’t work or are just wrong. It has the same correlation with mysticism

When using stachostic measuring processes it can be useful for problems with known/non random variables.

You can measure signals and oil in a well. With a reasonable amount of accuracy. But you also have stable boundary conditions and known variables. Which is grounded in physical reality.

But in most cases statistics will give you incorrect information. Because

NO ONE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE. WITH UNKNOWN OR HIDDEN VARIBLES.

It’s use in biology and the social sciences is criminal

Statistics is not math. It’s closer to empirical science.

>>16734420 (OP)
>NO ONE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE. WITH UNKNOWN OR HIDDEN VARIBLES.

Im sure casinos and book makers would love to hear alla bout your theories based retard

>>16734430
Nah, statistics is closer to applied math, like CS and Physics.

>>16734420 (OP)
>NO ONE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE. WITH UNKNOWN OR HIDDEN VARIBLES
Dead wrong. Or did you think science magically accounts for all unknown and hidden varibles in the whole of existence in every experiment.
The fact that while unable to do so scientific models are still capable of strong predictions is a testment to the fact that yes indeed one can predict the future, at least at the present, with unknown or hidden varibles.
At the end of the day, all of science is in just applied statistics, and it works.

>>16734420 (OP)
statistics has some interesting points. Statisticians on the other hand are paper chasing faggots who spaghetti-wall random shit in numpy hoping to get metric>=other metric (on a fixed dataset of course)

>>16734420 (OP)
>NO ONE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE
Well cuz you are a fucking loser with no hoes, so stfu and buy my course and become alpha
https://hustlers-university.ca/

>>16734420 (OP)
Idk if this is a troll, but fuck it
here is a very good example for why probability/statistics can be useful in real world cases. Physicists found out it was hard to determine the minimum amount of uranium to put in a nuclear bomb to make sure it explodes (the math was hard) so they discovered that using probability was much easier.

>>16734478
>ai slop
>implying physicists didn’t use probability and statistics before the 1940’s.

retard doesnt even understand the frequentist interpretation of probability.

no, you can't predict any particular concrete outcome in the future; what you're predicting is the aggregate description of an infinite number of outcomes in the future (under the same generating process).

Regardless, the use of stats in the classical applied fields isn't even to predict outcomes. It's to perform inference over a parameter in your model, and this inference can then support/refute a particular scientific hypothesis

also for some reason everybody forgets that stats has an entirely theoretical side, which is very much mathematics. there are crazy new techniques coming out for causal inference right now based on developments happening in semiparametric theory

>>16734420 (OP)
Statistics the way most people seem to understand it is pointless, if not actively wrong, but that doesn't make it useless math.
Few things are truly random, and most of those are manmade, but statistics nevertheless help to deal with unknown variables in real life scenarios, notably scientific trials and experiments.
Just remember, the probability of an event that has already occured is 1.

>>16734420 (OP)
You should stop consooming religious trash, it has rotten your brain.

>>16734420 (OP)
Why don't you bring this up to the MLB, NBA, or NHL? Surely you know better than the staticians employed by each team and talent scouts.