2014-02-25 8:43 GMT+01:00 chris peck <[email protected]>: > Hi Quentin > > *>>That's nonsense, * > > The point wasn't whether you think its nonsense or not. I couldn't care > less about that. we were arguing about whether there are Oxford Dons who > adopt the same standpoint as me, and given your little outburst above I > think you've just discovered that there are. And that they are publishing > these ideas in respected and peer reviewed journals. > > Just to recap then: It is perfectly respectable to reject the notion of > subjective uncertainty without abandoning MWI. Just as I said. > > > *>> and contrary to observed fact. * > > I always wince when you throw that one out. How does one break it to the > angriest member of a list that they are continually begging the question? > > > > *>> David Deutsch does not reject probability... * > > Sure he does, he swaps out the Born rule for rational decision theory (+ > amendments to make it compatible with MWI). There isn't probability, but we > should act 'as if' there was. Its what he's famous for, Quentin. >
o_O... he doesn't reject probability usage. > > > > *>>or could you please show a quote where he does.* > Do your own homework, mate. I'm not your little quote monkey. > Ok, I give up talking to you, if you want to assert thing and not back them up, well... > I've kindly described to you what I think people like Deutsch and Wallace > argue, I've supplied papers which you've refused to read. > I don't refuse to read them. You've cited *one* paper, I didn't have time to read it, I will this week. The abstract though did not reject probability calculus, only the interpretation of what it means. It is clear that in MWI setting probability is not about what happen and what does not, but about frequency and measure... that doesn't render probability meaningless... proof is, as you always are in *one* world, your measure will follow the predicted distribution... so what's your point ? > if you disagree you need display the same generosity and explain to me > what you think they are arguing and how that is different. > See upper Quentin > Waving your hands in the air demanding more and more to unceremoniously > and uncritically ditch is no-ones idea of fun. > > All the best > > Chris. > > ------------------------------ > Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:26:52 +1300 > > Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > > In the MWI you *do* see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of > "you" has been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split. Or to put > it another way, you (now) will become you (who sees spin up) and you (who > sees spin down), which by then will be two different people. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
