On 16 Dec 2012, at 19:35, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/16/2012 5:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[BM] Everett already show that such relative probabilities does
not depend on the choice of the basis, nor on my "place" in the
[SPK] I strongly disagree with this statement! Everett showed
the exact opposite; that relative probabilities completely depend
of the choice of basis and framing.
Prove? This is contrary to what Everett said, and I have try to
contradict him on this, eventually he is right. Deustch tought like
you but has eventually change its mind. There are no prefer basis,
and with the CTM there are not even a prefer ontological theory.
Is it possible to define a "relative probability" in the case
where it is not possible to count or otherwise partition the members
of the ensemble?
Yes. "relative probability" is not necessarily a constructive notion.
Not that I know of! If you know how, please explain this to me!
Normally if you follow the UDA you might understand intuitively why
the realtive probability are a priori not constructive. So you can't
use them in practice, but you still can use them to derive physics,
notably because the case "P = 1" can be handled at the proposition
level through the logic of self-references (Bp & Dt, p sigma_1).
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at