The word 'chance' then expresses only our ignorance of the causes of the phenomena that we observe to occur and to succeed one another in no apparent order. Probability is relative in part to this ignorance, and in part to our knowledge.
Interpretation
This quote highlights how chance reflects our limited understanding of the causes behind events, linking probability to both ignorance and knowledge.
In this quote, Pierre-Simon Laplace expresses the idea that what we often attribute to chance is a manifestation of our ignorance regarding the true causes of observable phenomena. He suggests that our understanding of probability is not just a reflection of randomness but is also influenced by the extent of our knowledge about the underlying processes that generate these events. This means that as our knowledge increases, our perception of chance decreases, illustrating the intricate relationship between uncertainty, knowledge, and probability in science.
In practice
In a lecture about probability theory, I would use this quote to illustrate how our understanding can change over time.
Without any doubt, the regularity which astronomy shows us in the movements of the comets takes place in all phenomena. The trajectory of a simple molecule of air or vapour is regulated in a manner as certain as that of the planetary orbits; the only difference between them is that which is contributed by our ignorance. Probability is relative in part to this ignorance, and in part to our knowledge.
It is interesting thus to follow the intellectual truths of analysis in the phenomena of nature. This correspondence, of which the system of the world will offer us numerous examples, makes one of the greatest charms attached to mathematical speculations.
All the effects of Nature are only the mathematical consequences of a small number of immutable laws.
Given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective positions of the beings which compose it, if moreover this intelligence were vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in the same formula both the movements of the largest bodies in the universe and those of the lightest atom; to it nothing would be uncertain, and the future as the past would be present to its eye.
The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.
Probability theory is nothing but common sense reduced to calculation.
The Analytical Engine has no pretensions whatever to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform... But it is likely to exert an indirect and reciprocal influence on science itself.
Science and fiction both begin with similar questions: What if? Why? How does it all work? But they focus on different areas of life on earth.
I would like nuclear fusion to become a practical power source. It would provide an inexhaustible supply of energy, without pollution or global warming.
As human beings, we are vulnerable to confusing the unprecedented with the improbable. In our everyday experience, if something has never happened before, we are generally safe in assuming it is not going to happen in the future, but the exceptions can kill you and climate change is one of those exceptions.
When we have any function, whether it's language or vision or cognitive functions like memory, we aren't dealing with a straight line to the brain that says 'This is what I do.' The brain builds a network of connections, a network of neurons that have a particular role in that function.
My wonder button is being pushed all the time.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.