On the Origins of Certain Arguments in J.M. Keynes Theoryof Probability

Mag. Dr. Maximilian OberbauerOctober 19, 2008

Abstract

The object of this paper is to raise awareness concerning the importance of philosoph-ical concepts to the process of formulating mathematical theories. As an example thequestion ’What is a probability’ is discussed. Serveral philosophical ideas of what theword ’is’ might or might not mean in this context are presented. With their help J.M.Keynes juxtaposition of his an J. Venns opinion on what a probabilities is, is discussed.

Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 A note on style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Common notions 23 Other Peoples Opinions 3

3.1 According to Thomas Aquinas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.2 According to Francisco Suarez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.3 According to Thomas Hobbes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.4 Circles and Thunderstorms reconsidered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4 What is a Probability? 55 Conclusion 7

1 Introduction

This paper is concerned with a seemingly simple question: What do we mean, when we say:“There is a probability”? The question has a far greater double: What do we mean, when wesay: “There is a mathematical object”? There are to concepts involved here; the existence of something and the thing that exists. This paper is basically concerned with the meaning of theword

in these sentences; it will be argued that this presents a (formidable) problem. To makeobvious how this problem appears and affects mathematical theory one of its appearances will beexamined in greater detail: John Maynard Keynes attempt to define what a probability is, andhis attempt to distinguish his idea from the ’frequency theory’ of probability. This is a helpfulexample for various reasons, first of all, because Keynes does not just present one but two differentapproaches, and secondly, because (as will become obvious) Keynes has at best a clouded idea,what the problem of his discussion is.Accordingly, this paper is organized in three steps:1

Step one

: In order to get a quick and readily understandable idea of the problem, a collectionof intuitive ideas will be presented. They are supposed to convey a feeling of what we are talkingabout.

Step two

: Three (pertinent) concepts of being will be discussed. These concepts are ”snapshots’taken from the works of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suarez and Thomas Hobbes. No discussionof the respective theories of this Philosophers are intended; the purpose is to isolate some tools.

Step three

: After briefly discussing some fundamental ideas of Keynes theory of probability,we will follow his attempt to distinguish his ideas from those of John Venn, one of the earlyproponents of the frequency theory of probabilty. It will be shown, that both theories are bestunderstood as answers to the question: What is a probability? Employing the tools gained in steptwo, it will become clear that neither Keynes nor Venn have seen this clearly; furthermore it willbecome clear that problems and advantages of both theories can be examined (fruitfully) usingthe tools developed here.In conclusion: the object of this paper is to raise awareness, not to argue for the final settlementof a debate in one or the other way; no argument, for example, is made, that the tools here employedare sufficient or appropriate; more tools, better tools would be welcome. The argument is thatideas concerning the meaning of the word ’is’ — that is: arguments concerned with some conceptof existence, be they expressed by using the word ’is’ or not — are important in the constructionof mathematical theories.

1.1 A note on style

Large sections of this paper are written in a rather colloquial style. There are several reasons forthis: First of all, the topic is not something (in my experience) usually discussed by mathemati-cians. On the contrary; part of this paper is intended to show, that even if such a disscussiontakes place, people, quite litterally, don’t know what they are talking about. Once again, thispaper is about raising awareness, not about producing results, in particular the section

common notions

is meant to be a ’soft introduction’; it’s main purpose is the accumulation of argumentsand questions; the need for the succeding philosophical arguments should become clear, or, at anyrate, be obvious once these questions are put forward in earnest. An analogie might help: in apaper concerned with geometry the author often has the considerable advantage to illustrate thepoint by showing figures, graphs and charts.There is not figure to be drawn here, but there are metaphors that help (I hope) the under-standing along. We will, for example, discuss John Venn and the frequency theory of probability,and a dolls house — the doll’s house being the central object of meditation. This is so obviousleysilly that (I hope) nobody is going to take it seriously. That has the — much underrated — ad-vantage that there will be no confusion between our modell and ’the world’, that is to say, betweenwhat is used as a crutch and what we want to explain to ourselves. Precision and clarity are byno means the prerogative of an ability to express something in symbolic form. [Carnap, 1958, p.1 ff]

2 Common notions

We start with a (regrettably not funny) variation of a common way to tell a joke: What is thediﬀerence between a thunderstorm, a circle, a stone and



×

−

?It is possible to distinguish two groups here: a thunderstorm and a stone are

natural

objects,a circle and



×

−

are

mathematical

objects. One diﬀerence between a naturaland a mathematical object is their connection to the science that studies them. Maybe this isunderstood best by using (the idea of) time: Stones and Thunderstorms have been around for alot longer than the sciences studying them; one of the questions that, therefore, does

not

arise, isas to the nature of the relationship between a thunderstorm and meteorology. A thunderstorm issomething in and by itself.

Being by itself

is meant to signify being — existing — without the helpor aid of humans. At this point the notion of time can be discarded; Thunderstorms are — they2

exist — without the help of humans, that is to say there presence — there beeing now — does notdepend on them. But what about the breeze brought forth by a ventilator? Clearly, one wouldsay, that breeze would not not exist without the help of humane beings, and stops being there onceit the ventilator is swiched of. A verbal distinction will help: the diﬀerence between the breezeand the thunderstorm is the way in which they have been

occasioned

, that is the cause of theirexistence is diﬀerent, not their way of existing. Another example: A computer has clearly beenput together by humane beings (and, moreover, is the result of a lot of intellectual endeauvour byhumande beings), however, once it is assebled, it is — it exists — without the help of a humanebeing. (It is helpful to)What about circles and



×

−



×

−

is one of Maxwell’s equations; it is used as an example, because, asopposed to thunderstorms, we can say that it is — occasioned — by a human being (Maxwell).(Not any humane being —

Maxwell

; somebody who has a name, a date of birth, and so on.) Asa matter of simplicity we shall use

instead of



×

−

; both equationscan be substituted for one another, because in our context they do have the same meaning. Theyare algebraic formulas. In particular

is used to descirbe a circle. The word circle,however, is not just used to describe an algebraic expression, but also brings to mind the imageof a circle, like one that is drawn by the help of a compass. A circle so drawn is, obviousley,comparable to a thunderstorm; it is by itself, and without the help of a humane being, whereas

is a circle, only if one understands the

meaning

of the expression.We shall ad to this an additional complication: what about statements of properties of suchobjects: The tenth proposition of the third book of Euclid’s Elements: [Eucild, 2005, p. 7] statesthata circle does not cut another circle at more than two pointsMy Edition refers to 3.5, 3.1 and 1.11; 3.1 refers to 1.11, 1.9, 1.8 and definition 10; 1.11 refers to 1.8,1.3, 1.1, and again definition 10. The point of this exercise is obvious: All of Euclid’s propositionsare constructed by use of 23 Definitions, 5 Postulates and 5 Common notions. There are of course subsequent definitions and there is considerable doubt whether Euclid’s Definitions and aresufficient, well formulated and so on. Notice, that the point of interest is not something that canpossibly exist; or even be imagined: One may imagine to circles cutting each other, and one mayinfer from this imagination that they cannot have more than two points of intersection, but thisis, as stated, an

inference

, or a conclusion, or an observation, or a theorem, but it is deﬁnitivelynot something that can exist by itself. (To understand this point, you may ask yourself, whetheryou have ever met, drunken or touched a conclusion.)The example, however, gives a hint, as to the way it came into existence: it refers us to previouspropositions. That is normally understood as providing certainty. For example, Thomas Hobbesdiscovered Euclid and his continuing love for geometry in a gentlemen’s library in Paris: The Ele-ments lay there, opened on the page containing 1.47 — the proposition concerned with Pythagoraslaw, nothing less — and Hobbes could trace it back right to the Postulates.[Aubrey, 1999] That isto say, he read it

backwards

, in which case the propositions can be understood as being conclusivelydemonstrated. Reading Euclid forwards, however, they appear to be constructed from or by use of the ﬁrst sentences. Constructed with care and diligence, and a lot of eﬀort. They did

not

appearby themselves, as opposed to storms, which do appear without any humane help or eﬀort. Thisgives rise to questions about their existence. To better understand what questions may be askedat this point, it seems advisable to get some help concerning the meaning of the word existence.What, exactly, does it mean to be there?

3 Other Peoples Opinions

Having amassed problems and questions, we shall try to present ’solutions’ in an orderly manner.In particular three authors and their ideas will be examined. It should be noted, that this is anattempt to gather some ideas, not to comperhensively explain their positions on these issues.3