On Monday, September 7, 2015, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 9/6/2015 7:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> $2, because you can just say "Monday" each time you're asked. It has >> nothing to do with probabilities. It's a good analogue of the MWI problem; >> when everything is deterministic and everything happens there's no >> objective measure. >> > > There are many "interpretations" of prboability: > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_interpretations> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_interpretations > > I think the thought experiment I describe is an example of probability > under the "frequentist" definition. > > > No, there's no randomness in it. There's no distribution to approximate > in repeated trials. > It's the same kind of randomness that emerges from multiverse theories. You presumably estimate probabilities in everyday life, and generally it serves you well. Do you conclude from this that multiverse theories are wrong, and there must be a single track universe with true randomness? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
