(no subject)

From: John A. Goldsmith (ja-goldsmith@uchicago.edu)
Date: Sat Apr 28 2001 - 22:50:11 MET DST

  • Next message: Mills, Carl (MILLSCR): "RE: Corpora: Chomsky and corpus linguistics"

    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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 30 2001 - 08:52:53 MET DST