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 [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.
