On 12/17/2012 2:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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
Yes. "relative probability" is not necessarily a constructive notion.
Is this not a confession that there is something fundamentally
non-computable in the notion of a relative measure? I know about this
from my study of the problem of the axiom of choice, but I would like to
see your opinion on this.
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 relative 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).
Was it not Penrose that was roundly criticized to claiming that
there had to be something non-computable in physics? It seems that you
might have proven his case! I go much further (faster!) and claim that
this non-constructable aspect is the main reason why there cannot exist
a pre-established harmony in the Laplacean sense of the universe.
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