On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 09:00:35PM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 10 Jun 2014, at 06:51, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:39:14PM +1200, LizR wrote: > >> > >>> On 10 June 2014 14:52, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 6/9/2014 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > >>>> > >>>> OK - there are 2 future branches, A and B, each of which have equal > >>>>> objective probability of occurring. Ie the Born rule says each has a > >>>>> probability of 0.5. > >>>>> > >>>>> However, perhaps _subjectively_, Alice sees branch A with probability > >>>>> 0.9 and branch B with probability 0.1, and Bob sees branch A with > >>>>> probability 0.1 and branch B with probability 0.9. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> If there are only two branches then Alice see each with probability 1.0. > >>>> From a bird's eye view you can renormalize this and call it 0.5. But I > >>>> don't see any way to even assign meaning to 0.1 or 0.9 when the branch > >>>> probabilities are 0.5. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Me neither. Glad we agree on something :-) > >>> > >>> Over to you, Russell. What are we missing? > >>> > >>> > >> The probabilities are those of entering branch A or B from the > >> unbranched state the precedes them. > >> > >> You're making an assumption that this measure is proportional to the > >> cardinality of those branches. I'm making no such assumption. That's all. > >> > > > > But then your first person experience will depart from the gaussian one, > > that we can observe, in the 3p view of the many 1-views which are defined > > by the testimony of the experiences in the observable many diaries. In the > > iterated WM duplication, you will get a majority of doppelgangers > > criticizing your "selection" as arbitrary. > > > > Of course this is assuming we already inherit the normality which must > > exist with comp, and seems to exist technically, and also empirically, of > > course, ... well I hope. > > > > I think I see what is meant, but can you elaborate on why "normality must > exist with comp/technically"? PGC > >
I think Bruno is referring to the central limit theorem. The WM duplication gives a kind of binomial distribution of outcomes, and in the limit of many trials, this approaches a normal (aka Gaussian) distribution. In answer to Bruno's question, indeed the ability to influence one's subjective probability in this was will lead to a departure from normality, one that is not visible objectively to any third party. In short, the reality you inhabit will increasingly become "magical", like a white rabbit or Harry Potter universe. As for mechanism? There won't be one, certainly not sharable scientifically, anyway. Any number of arcane rituals or spells might work, or might not. For me, I don't think this stuff gets much beyond bar talk - but maybe Liz can weave this into one of her novels :). Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.
