On 11 Oct 2011, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:

On 10/11/2011 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My non observed "future"; or computational extensions, is selected, making the comp physics explainable in term of statistics on computations. This leads to general physical laws invariant for all observers. There is no selection of a particular computations, just a relative indeterminacy bearing on all computations going through my state. In particular we cannot use Bayes theorem, for example.

Isn't "relative indeterminacy" quantified by conditional probability; for which Bayes theorem is the appropriate tool.

Conditional probability is quantified by its definition P(A/B) = P(A intersect B)/P(B). In this case Bayes probability is P(B/A), and is given by Bayes formula. The first one is typical of the use of probability, like in QM. The second one is used to do inductive reasoning. Bayes theorem depends on conditional probability, but the reverse is not true.

Bruno




Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to