On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 10:07:05PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I don't follow where the dependence on SSSA comes from. This is the > assumption that each observer-moment should be considered as a random > selection from all observer-moments in the universe (broadly defined). > > Your example would seem to be classical Bayesian reasoning. A priori > you don't know whether the sixth digit of pi is a 9, so you give that > 1/10 probability. After seeing Mathematica's output, you estimate the > probability that it would say it is a 9 when the actual digit is not a 9 > (i.e. make a mistake), which is very small. You feed that into the Bayes > formula and end up with a strong probability that the sixth digit is 9. > > Are you saying that Bayesian analysis depends on the Strong SSA? Could > you elaborate on this?
Bayesian analysis in general does not depend on the Strong SSA, but any Bayesian analysis where you try to compute P(X | I observe Y) does because you need the Strong SSA to compute P(I observe Y | X) and P(I observe Y | not X). My example is one of classical Bayesian reasoning, but it is slightly different from the way you put it, because I don't have direct knowledge that Mathematica outputs a 9 for the sixth digit of Pi. I do know that I am reading "N[Pi]=3.14159", and Strong SSA is needed to derive the probability that I am reading "N[Pi]=3.14159" if Pi doesn't begin with 3.14159.