Abstract
Both Popper and Good have noted that a deterministic microscopic physical approach to probability requires subjective assumptions about the statistical distribution of initial conditions. However, they did not use such a fact for defining an a priori probability, but rather recurred to the standard observation of repetitive events. This observational probability may be hard to assess for real-life decision problems under uncertainty that very often are - strictly speaking - non-repetitive, one-time events. This may be a reason for the popularity of subjective probability in decision models. Unfortunately, such subjective probabilities often merely reflect attitudes towards risk, and not the underlying physical processes.
In order to get ‘as objective as possible’ a definition of probability for one-time events, this paper identifies the origin of randomness in individual chance processes. By focusing on the dynamics of the process, rather than on the (static) device, it is found that any process contains two components: observer-independent (= ‘objective’) and observer-dependent (= ‘subjective’). Randomness, if present, arises from the subjective definition of the ‘rules of the game’, and is not - as in Popper's propensity - a physical property of the chance device. In this way, the classical definition of probability is no longer a primitive notion based upon equally possible cases, but is derived from the underlying microscopic processes, plus a subjective, clearly identified, estimate of the branching ratios in an event tree. That is, equipossibility is not an intrinsic property of the system object/subject but is forced upon the system via the rules of the game/measurement.
Also, the typically undefined concept of symmetry in games of chance is broken down into objective and subjective components. It is found that macroscopic symmetry may hold under microscopic asymmetry. A similar analysis of urn drawings shows no conceptual difference with other games of chance (contrary to Allais' opinion). Finally, the randomness in Lande's knife problem is not due to ‘objective fortuity’ (as in Popper's view) but to the rules of the game (the theoretical difficulties arise from intermingling microscopic trajectories and macroscopic events).
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allais, M.: 1978, ‘On the concept of probability’, Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali, anno XXV, No. 11, 937–956.
Allais, M.: 1983, ‘Frequency, Probability and Chance’ pp. 35–86 in B. P. Stigum and F. Wenstop (Eds.), Foundations of Utility and Risk Theory with Applications, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 491 pp.
Allais, M.: 1984, ‘The Foundations of the Theory of Utility and Risk. Some Central Points of the Discussions at the Oslo Conference’ pp. 3–131 in O. Hagen and F. Wenstop (Eds.), Progress in Utility and Risk Theory, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 279 pp.
Boole, G.: 1854, An Investigation of the Laws of Thought on Which Are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities, Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Originally printed by Macmillan (1854), 424 pp.
Covello, V. T. and Mumpower, J.: 1985, ‘Risk analysis and risk management: an historical perspective’, Risk Analysis, 5, 103–120.
Good, I. J.: 1959, ‘Kinds of probability’, Science, 129, 443–447.
Hacking, I.: 1975, The Emergence of Probability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 209 pp.
Hagen, O.: 1972, ‘A new axiomatization of utility under risk’, Teorie a Metoda, 4, 55–80. Also, Reprint 1987/4, Norwegian School of Management.
Henley, E. J. and Kumamoto, H.: 1981, Reliability Engineering and Risk Assessment, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., U.S.A., 562 pp.
Jammer, M.: 1974, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 536 pp.
Jaynes, E. T.: 1973, ‘The well-posed problem’, Foundations of Physics, 3, 477–492.
Kaplan, S.: 1982, ‘Matrix theory formalism for event tree analysis: application to nuclear-risk analysis’, Risk Analysis, 2, 9–18.
Klein, M. J.: 1961, ‘Max Planck and the beginnings of the quantum theory’, Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 1, 459–479.
Lambert, H. E.: 1973, Systems Safety Analysis and Fault Tree Analysis, Report UCID-16238, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, California, 72 pp.
Lande, A.: 1960, From Dualism to Unity in Quantum Theory, Cambridge University Press, London.
Laplace, Marquis de: 1825, Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilités, 5th edition, Bachelier, Paris, 276 pp.
May, R. M.: 1976, ‘Simple mathematical models with very complicated dynamics’, Nature, 261, 459–467. Reprinted in Hao Bai-Lin, Chaos, pp. 149–157, World Scientific Publishing Co, Singapore (1984), 576 pp.
McCormick, N. J.: 1981, Reliability and Risk Analysis, Academic Press, Inc., New York, U.S.A., 446 pp.
Munera, H. A.: 1985, ‘A theory for technological risk comparisons’, pp. 14–58 in G. Yadigaroglu and S. Chakraborty (Eds.), Risk Analysis as a Decision Tool, Verlag TUeV Rheinland, Cologne, 391 pp.
Munera, H. A.: 1988a, ‘A large scale empirical test for the linearized moments model (LMM): compatibility between theory and observation’, 291–311 in B. R. Munier (Ed.), Risk, Decision and Rationality, D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 707 pp.
Munera, H. A.: 1988b, ‘A microscopic physical approach to probability’, presented at the Fourth International Conference on the Foundations of Utility, Risk and Decision Theory, FUR-IV, Budapest, Hungary (June 6–10, 1988), 26 pp.
Popper, K. R.: 1959, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, First English edition (direct translation of the original German text, 1934), Hutchinson of London, 480 pp.
Rubin, E. (Ed.): 1960, ‘Questions and answers. Samuel Pepys, Isaac Newton, and Probability’, The American Statistician, 14, 27–30.
Sheynin, O. B.: 1970, ‘Newton and the classical theory of probability’, Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 7, 217–243.
Sheynin, O. B.: 1974, ‘On the prehistory of the theory of probability’, Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 12, 97–141.
US NRC: 1975, Reactor Safety Study, An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1400 (NUREG 75/014), Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C., U.S.A., Main Report, 141 pp.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Dedicated to Professor Maurice Allais on the occasion of the Nobel Prize in Economics awarded December, 1988.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Munera, H.A. A deterministic event tree approach to uncertainty, randomness and probability in individual chance processes. Theor Decis 32, 21–55 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133626
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133626