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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
