On 10/24/2014 6:53 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:35:36AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
So are you simply assuming there is a "winner", i.e. that the
relevant statistics exist in the limit? Even if they do, it's not
clear that they exist for our experience which is not "in the
limit". It seems that you are assuming something like "The
probability of a number being even is 1/2."
This was Jean Delahaye's argument. For physical probabilities (Born
rule and all that), it suffices to assume that in a situation where 1
bit of information is generated (eg the WM duplication thought
experiment), then whether that bit is 0 or 1 has equal probability (ie
relative probability of 1/2).
But we're trying to define probability without assuming physics. If you actually assume
physics then there's no reason so suppose W=M=1/2. It could well be W=0.5001 and M=0.4999.
Brent
That suffices to build a universal prior
distribution on observed worlds, and it is a relative, not absolute
measure. This could be considered relative to a universal person,
having no memories or other characteristics other than being
conscious, if such can exist.
--
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.
