[lottin]

What I was saying before is that, as long as you only use the degree of belief as an ordinal value, you don't need to come up with an explanation for what the actual value represents (e.g. the percentage of neurons that agree or disagree with the statement, or whatever you think it means to think that a statement is X% true in terms of something that is quantifiable). But the problem is probability is not ordinal, it's a cardinal value, so you DO have to come up with an explanation. That was the argument.

Do the rules make sense? The rules don't have to make sense, they're axioms. They're assumed to be true whether they make sense or not. We are not discussing the axioms. We are discussing interpretations of probability. In my opinion a good interpretation of probability must provide a context in which these axioms (kind of) make sense. And that's one of the problems I have with the interpretation of probability as a degrees of belief, the rules don't make sense in the provided context, at least to me, because I don't know how to make sense of arithmetic operations involving degrees of belief. (But that doesn't mean that I think the rules themselves don't make sense.)

Finally, even if you think that the human mind doesn't work in the way degrees of belief are hypothesised to work, you may still find the concept useful as a means of giving an interpretation to probability. Personally, I don't think that the mind works like that, nor that they're useful as an interpretation of probability. This is basically my position.

[kgwgk]

Fine. I was trying to answer your question "what do people mean when they say they're 33% sure that tomorrow it will rain". They mean that they find twice as plausible that it will not rain. It's just that you don't understand it as they do.

Anyway, I think you're getting the direction of the argument wrong. It's not that you have probabilities and force an interpretation of them as degrees of belief.

You start with real numbers representing degrees of belief (with an ordinal meaning only, a larger number means more plausible) and some "common sense" properties they should have to be "rational":

  - having identical information should result in the same degree of belief

  - the degree of belief in "not A" should be a function of the degree of belief in A

  - the degree of belief in "A and B" should be a function of the degree of belief in "A given B" and the degree of belief in B

The rules of probability _are_the_consequence_ (once the value of certainty is fixed to 1)

    p(A) + p(not A) = 1

    p(A and/or B) = p(A) + p(B) - p(A and B)

    p(A and B) = p(A|B)p(B) = p(A)p(B|A)

and the use of probabilities to represent degrees of belief is not something you come up with. It is derived from the assumptions above (which don't involve probability at all).

[lottin]

Alright, thank you. I don't think that this is right at all, but I will give it a further thought when I have the time. Nice talking to you.

[kgwgk]

Depending on your background, you may find this paper interesting http://jimbeck.caltech.edu/summerlectures/references/Probabi...

In pages 5-9 he derives the rules of probability as a "reasonable expectations" extension to symbolic logic.

Of course you're right that this is a description of how rational thought should be and not necessarily a description of how people think. Actual beliefs can be inconsistent in the same way that one can believe things that go against the laws of logic.

It's always fun to discuss the foundations of probability. Thanks.