On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 03:13:48PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > -- "We don't yet know which world the cat is in, or which world we are > in along with the cat, but in a few minutes we'll know for sure." (And > everyone will agree on this...there will be no disagreement amongst > honest observers as to whether got away or got caught by the dog.)
I'm afraid I don't quite see the point of this example. Maybe it's just a matter of familiarity, but to me both the Baysian and the MWI ways of thinking about this are more natural/easier to work with. I should say that the Baysian and the MWI flavored descriptions are not just different ways of saying the same thing. The Baysian is saything that there is one outcome but he's not sure what it will be while the MWI-er is saying both outcomes will happen. Notice that you can have a combination of the two where you're not sure what proportion of branches each outcome will occur in. How would the time-varying set way of thinking about this handle the distinctions? I guess I don't see what's broken with Baysian and MWI approaches that is fixed by this new concept. Maybe I'll understand after reading one of the category theory books (I've reserved Conceptual Mathematics from the library). However I have to read Hartley Rogers's Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability first, so I hope you'll stay long enough for me to get to it. :)
