On 07 Mar 2014, at 00:33, chris peck wrote:
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.
With respect to the UDA, graves and me are just using different
vocabulary.
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?
Yes. For everyone = everyone among scientists.
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'.
You can't compare "Darwin general complex scheme", and a statement
like P(M) = 1/2 in a simple protocol.
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.
I have no theory, and I defend no truth.
You say that a reasoning is not valid, it is up to you to prove this.
Handwaving on vocabulary does not do the task. Only by providing an
determinacy algorithm, can you refute the 1p indeterminacy in
duplication experience.
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?
Well, if you provide a refutation, I would be. But you did not. You
only pretend to have one, but nobody has seen it.
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.
In that sense, OK. But I am not doing philosophy.
Bruno
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.
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/d/optout.
