Can one reason about things without involving this concept altogether? Although the answer to this is trivially yes since the theory came about only 400 years ago, my question is moreso whether one loses anything by expunging this concept completely.
Let’s first take the “physical” sense of probability. When we say that the probability of a dice rolling on 1 is 1/6, it seems to imply as if the dice roll is affected by some law. But can this simply be phrased another way without involving this concept at all?
Can one instead say “The dice has equal sides and I see no more reason for it to land on one particular side than another given its geometry.”
This seems to capture the same essence of probability without involving an actual figure and makes more clear the idea that there is no fundamental probabilistic law here when it comes to dice rolls.
“The dice rolled on 1” now seems to just be any other event instead of an event that has a probability of 1/6 which can easily result in the confusion that it could have rolled on another side otherwise. For all other events, we don’t do this. If an event such as “John watched TV at 6:06 PM yesterday at his home” occurs, no one thinks of all the different kinds of events that could have happened instead. More importantly, no one thinks that this event occurred by chance. So then why do this for dice rolls? Dice rolls by the same logic don’t occur by some special process called chance either. There is nothing about a dice roll that is special in the way the laws of physics work around it compared to someone watching TV.
When it comes to other kinds of “non physical” probabilities such as epistemic probabilities in regards to a hypothesis, this is more easily refutable. Any coherent hypothesis about the world is either true or false. Trivially, its “actual” probability must either be 0 or 1. But if it’s 0 or 1, we can simply use words that have described this binary state for centuries: truth and falsity.
Finally, some have argued that subjective probability is needed since we often feel confident in some belief more than another. Again, this can simply be phrased as “I feel more strongly about A than B.” or “If I had to pick between A and B, I would pick A.” No concept of probability needed.
Is this concept needed at all when reasoning about anything? If the goal of philosophy is to seek truth, why use any concept that doesn’t have a basis or seems meaningless in many contexts in reality?