On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:53:08PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > 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. >
If W=0.5001 and M=0.4999, seeing Washington will give us 0.999711.. bits of information. Seeing Moscow gives us 1.00028... bits of information. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
