[mojomark]

It sounds like you're argument is actually stating that probability is in fact a real attribute of physical systems, but the accuracy with which you can accurately predict a probabilistic event is dependant on the amount of information you have about the system. Interestingly, someone only observing results of a probabilistic event will eventually learn to predict events with an accuracy approaching ideal (I.e. the true probability distribution of the system - or someone who knows every single detail about the causal system down to the limits of physical reality - subatomic particles and all of the underlying physics we don't understand yet).

There's that phrase again - "true probability" (implying the word "True" == "Real"). You could imagine a system that yields non-linear results, such that no matter how many observations were made, your ability to accuratelt predict outcomes in the system never increases. In this case, you might conclude that you're dealing with one of two special cases: 1.) a non-probablistic event (i.e. a purely random (0% predicatable) event or 2.) on the other end of hyperbole, a purely deterministic event (100% predictable)).

[ikeboy]

>Interestingly, someone only observing results of a probabilistic event will eventually learn to predict events with an accuracy approaching ideal

This relies on various unstated assumptions.

I would deny the assumption that an event can be probablistic in nature. There are only ever predictions. The distinction between a probablistic world and a deterministic world is incoherent.

[XuMiao]

If quantum reality is objective, then probabilistic reality is objective.

Deterministic probability like Chaos or second law of thermodynamics imply the existence of incomplete information. This type of probabilistic reality might be subjective.

[ikeboy]

I don't think that's a coherent concept. It's not clear how one can assert that a particular model of reality is "correct" outside of any predictions than it makes.

[feanaro]

How do you resolve the problems raised by Bell's theorem?

[ikeboy]

Bell's theorem rules out local realism. I view realism as incoherent, so I'm certainly not committed to local realism.

[feanaro]

You said the distinction between a probabilistic world and a deterministic one is incoherent. But if there is no local realism, wouldn't it be more accurate to describe your position as saying all events are probabilistic rather than none of them?

[ikeboy]

No. All events being probabilistic is still realism, just in a weaker sense than Bell.

[feanaro]

Yeah, I'm grasping at straws because I don't really understand what your position is from the things you said in this thread.