B Simple probability question: Suppose P(B|A)=1. Does that mean that P(A|B)=1?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between conditional probabilities, specifically whether P(A|B)=1 follows from P(B|A)=1. It is clarified that while P(B|A)=1 indicates that B occurs almost surely when A occurs, it does not imply that A must occur when B occurs, as A can be a subset of B. The conversation also touches on the definitions of causality, emphasizing that correlation does not equate to causation, and that the order of events matters in determining causal relationships. Participants argue that without a clear definition of "cause," one cannot assert a bidirectional causation merely based on probabilities. Ultimately, the consensus is that P(B|A)=1 does not necessarily lead to P(A|B)=1, highlighting the complexities of interpreting conditional probabilities in the context of causation.
  • #31
entropy1 said:
But actually, if ##A \rightarrow B## AND ##C \rightarrow NOT(B)##, then I wonder if C=True results in A=NOT True (or, of course, A=True in C=NOT True).
We can do a short proof here:

To be proven: ##C \rightarrow \neg A##

##1: A \rightarrow B## assumption 1
##2: C \rightarrow \neg B## assumption 2
##3: C## assumption 3
##4: \neg B## modus ponens 2,3
##5: \neg A ## modus tollens 1,4
##6: C \rightarrow \neg A## hypothethical syllogism (1,2),3,(4),5

##-## and there you have it ##\dots##
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
entropy1 said:
No, ##A \rightarrow B## is equivalent to ##NOT(B) \rightarrow NOT(A)##.

But actually, if ##A \rightarrow B## AND ##C \rightarrow NOT(B)##, then I wonder if C=True results in A=NOT True (or, of course, A=True in C=NOT True).
I always wondered why probability and logic are in the same forum. Now I see why. :smile:
 
  • #33
sysprog said:
We can do a short proof here:

To be proven: ##C \rightarrow \neg A##

##1: A \rightarrow B## assumption 1
##2: C \rightarrow \neg B## assumption 2
##3: C## assumption 3
##4: \neg B## modus ponens 2,3
##5: \neg A ## modus tollens 1,4
##6: C \rightarrow \neg A## hypothethical syllogism (1,2),3,(4),5

##-## and there you have it ##\dots##
So does that mean that one of (1) or (2) gets "reversed"? Can we then speak of retrocausality? (reversed causality?)
 
  • #34
entropy1 said:
Can we then speak of retrocausality? (reversed causality?)
Please do not ask this question again without a clear and exact definition of retrocausality. Preferably one from the professional literature.

To all other participants: please do not respond to this question without such a definition.
 
  • #35
At this point we will go ahead and close this thread. I strongly recommend studying the existing literature in this topic, perhaps including the time symmetric formulation of quantum mechanics. It is best to use definitions from the literature as they are more likely to have addressed some of the basic issues mentioned so far.

For any future threads on this topic please start with a professional scientific reference that can serve as the basis of discussion
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
462
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
589
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K