No subject

[John A. Goldsmith]

Mike Maxwell wrote:
>I'm sorry, but I completely fail to understand how a probability
distribution
>can be a theory or explanation of anything (except maybe in quantum
>mechanics, where I gather the point is that there _is_ no explanation,
unless
>you believe in the Copenhagen many-worlds interpretation). I don't believe
> there is a random number generator in our heads that explains the form of
> the sentences we utter, write or think.
Well, fine: here's an intellectual issues, not a philosophical or
methodological one, to tackle. May I say, very kindly and gently, that
you will need to do some reading. The theory of probability is not
linked in any essential way to the notion of random generators. The
theory of probability is essentially a quantitative theory of evidence
(though that is not _all_ that it is). Probabilistic models, as much
as non-probabilistic models, allow one to seek elegant models that lurk,
or loom, behind the observations; that's not an issue.
If you want to pursue this, a natural place to look is at statistical
mechanics, the great success story of 19th century physics -- a theory
of great elegance and beauty, derived from statistical models (though
perfectly consistent with strictly mechanistic behavior at the atomic
level).
Distributions is indeed what it's all about, but this has nothing to
do with quantum mechanics or any exotica of the sort.
John Goldsmith