If Y = X_1 + ... + X_n where n is large, then Y will be normally distributed. Any binary measurement is Bernoulli distributed, R^2s are chi-squared distributed, distributions are plenty real.
Your argument is circular. Certainly given X_i is Bernoulli “distributed”, then the sum converges as you say.
But X_i does not “have” a Bernoulli distributioin. Nothing “has” a probability.
Distributions do not exist because probabilities do not exist, not in things, not in Nature. They are merely (as I take many weeks to show) logical representations about propositions with given assumptions.
This doesn’t imbue any object with a distribution or probability.
In building a model of a physical system, one should abide by The Principles of Reasoning called "entropy minimax,' as the resulting model represents all of the available information about the conditional outcomes of the events of the future but for the physical system being modelled but no more and otherwise this model represents more than the available information or less.
Circa 1975, The Prinicples of Reasoning were discovered by the late Ronald Arlie Christensen, they a PhD candidate in the theoretical physics program of the University of California, Berkeley. Circa 1985, Christensen published the seven volume treatise on this topic that he called the "Entropy Minimax Sourcebook to document his work. However, entropy minimax failed to catch on amongst the builders of models of physical systems. Instead, they iimplemented the intuitive rules of thumb that are called "huristics." However, on each occasion in which a particular heuristic selected a particular set of inferences for being made by a model of a physical system, a different heuristic selected a different set of inferences for being made. In this respect, the heuristics method violated the Law or Non-Contradiction (LNC).. The LNC was amongst Aristotle's three Laws of Thought As this is written, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophty misleads the readers of its article on The Probelm of Induction by ignoring the fact that The Principles of Reasoning are the solution to this problem.
I encountered a "skewed" distribution years ago in sample testing electro-mechanical meters for a very large AMR project install. If I remember correctly the lower accuracy curve was normal and the upper accuracy was skewed sharply. My understanding was this was due to the nature of the electro-mechanical build(?).
Thanks for my daily dose of truth. I don’t always understand the symbolic representations but the core points resonate.
Thanks for sticking with it.
That's Sabine Hossenfelder William. Hasenpfeffer is marinated rabbit.
I was close.
If Y = X_1 + ... + X_n where n is large, then Y will be normally distributed. Any binary measurement is Bernoulli distributed, R^2s are chi-squared distributed, distributions are plenty real.
Your argument is circular. Certainly given X_i is Bernoulli “distributed”, then the sum converges as you say.
But X_i does not “have” a Bernoulli distributioin. Nothing “has” a probability.
Distributions do not exist because probabilities do not exist, not in things, not in Nature. They are merely (as I take many weeks to show) logical representations about propositions with given assumptions.
This doesn’t imbue any object with a distribution or probability.
In building a model of a physical system, one should abide by The Principles of Reasoning called "entropy minimax,' as the resulting model represents all of the available information about the conditional outcomes of the events of the future but for the physical system being modelled but no more and otherwise this model represents more than the available information or less.
Circa 1975, The Prinicples of Reasoning were discovered by the late Ronald Arlie Christensen, they a PhD candidate in the theoretical physics program of the University of California, Berkeley. Circa 1985, Christensen published the seven volume treatise on this topic that he called the "Entropy Minimax Sourcebook to document his work. However, entropy minimax failed to catch on amongst the builders of models of physical systems. Instead, they iimplemented the intuitive rules of thumb that are called "huristics." However, on each occasion in which a particular heuristic selected a particular set of inferences for being made by a model of a physical system, a different heuristic selected a different set of inferences for being made. In this respect, the heuristics method violated the Law or Non-Contradiction (LNC).. The LNC was amongst Aristotle's three Laws of Thought As this is written, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophty misleads the readers of its article on The Probelm of Induction by ignoring the fact that The Principles of Reasoning are the solution to this problem.
I am Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Los Altos Hills, California
650-518-6636 ( mobile )
terry_oldberg@yahoo.com ( email )
I encountered a "skewed" distribution years ago in sample testing electro-mechanical meters for a very large AMR project install. If I remember correctly the lower accuracy curve was normal and the upper accuracy was skewed sharply. My understanding was this was due to the nature of the electro-mechanical build(?).
Is it reasonable to conclude that some things do occur in a distribution due to some underlying (but possibly unknown) cause or set of causes?
Other than researchers arranging them in such a way, I mean ...
No.