Hi Bruno >>Refuting means to the satisfaction of everyone.
pfft! let me put it this way. There are a bunch of perspectives on subjective uncertainty available. Yours and Greave's to mention just two. They are mutually incompatible and neither of them has been refuted to the 'satisfaction of everyone'; consequently whether something has or hasn't been doesn't tells us much. Refuting something to the 'satisfaction of everyone' is extraordinarily rare in the scientific and philosophical community; less still the wider community. Has Astrology been refuted to the satisfaction of everyone? You're also aware, im sure, that even Darwin's theory, strictly speaking, has been refuted. That the theory of inheritance he employed was in conflict with his wider principles of selection. His theory was internally incoherent and he never spotted it. What does that tell us? That theories have extraordinary value even when they ought to have been 'refuted to the satisfaction of everyone'. This is a good and bad thing. Even if I hadn't refuted your theory to my own satisfaction, it wouldn't lead me to accept it. On the other hand, just because a theory has been (or ought to have been) refuted by everyone wouldn't lead me to reject it entirely either. It means I can have refuted your conclusions in step 3 to my own satisfaction, and still be interested in comp. Hurray! Surely that will make you happy? Have you ever read Putnam's 'on the corroboration of theories'? It was pivotal in my extremely stunted intellectual growth. In it he discusses the impossibility of ever refuting any theory. You're talking to someone who hasn't placed any currency in refutation for over twenty years. All the best Chris. From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 19:32:32 +0100 On 06 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:52:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Mar 2014, at 18:45, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show you what's happening. The strangeness that you noticed occurs because you're looking at cases where the proportion is *exactly* 50%. binopdf(2,4,0.5)=0.375 binopdf(3,6,0.5)=0.3125 binopdf(4,8,0.5)=0.2374 binopdf(8,16,0.5)=0.1964 binopdf(1000,2000,0.5)=0.0178 binopdf(1e6,2e6,0.5)=0.0006 Instead let's look at cases which are in some range close to 50%. binocdf(5,8,0.5)-binocdf(3,8,0.5)=0.4922 binocdf(10,16,0.5)-binocdf(6,16,0.5)=0.6677 binocdf(520,1000,0.5)-binocdf(480,1000,0.5)=0.7939 binocdf(1001000,2e6,0.5)-binocdf(999000,2e6,0.5)=0.8427 binocdf(1000050000,2e9,0.5)-binocdf(999950000,2e9,0.5)=0.9747 Basically, as you flip a coin more and more times, you get a growing number of distinct proportions of heads and tails that can come up, so any exact proportion becomes less likely. But at the same time, as you flip the coin more and more times, the distribution of proportions starts to cluster more and more tightly around the expected value. So for tests when you do two million flips of a fair coin, only about 0.06% of the tests come up exactly 50% heads and 50% tails, but 84.27% of the tests come up between 49.95% and 50.05%. Good. So you agree with step 3? What about step 4? (*). I am interested to know. the FPI is just the elementary statistics of the "bernouilly épreuve" (in french statistics), and that is pretty obvious when you grasp the definitions given of 1p and 3p. Bruno (*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Did you mean to address me, or did you mean to address Chris? I don't object to any step in UDA. It seems internally consistent and plausible to me. I'm unsure what level of confidence I would assign to it being actually true, although my gut feeling is in the vicinity of 25%. A reasoning is 100% valid, or invalid. Do you mean that the truth of the premise, comp, is in the vicinity of 25%. making perhaps its neoplatonist consequences in the vicinity of 25% ? I will make a confession: for me comp only oscillates between the false and the unbelievable. I have much formal logic to learn before I have any meaningful opinion about AUDA. OK. Fair enough to say. I often come back to zero, so you might enjoy a ride eventually :) Bruno -Gabe -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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/d/optout.
