On 8 September 2015 at 16:50, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/09/2015 3:59 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 8 September 2015 at 08:52, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 8/09/2015 8:11 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, September 8, 2015, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 9/6/2015 10:49 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Monday, September 7, 2015, Brent Meeker < <[email protected]> >>> [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]> >>>> [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. >>> >>> >>> Right, a kind which doesn't (in most models) have a probability >>> interpretation because there's no clear measure. >>> >>> You presumably estimate probabilities in everyday life, and generally >>> it serves you well. >>> >>> Sure, I make subjective estimates by hypothesizing some ensemble of >>> possibilities with a measure on it - but I don't infer from this that all >>> those hypotheticals really happen or that the probability I come up with is >>> an objective fact about the world. >>> >> >> But can you infer something about the nature of the world from the fact >> that probabilities seem to be useful? >> >> >> Only that none of us is omniscient! >> > > If all possibilities are realised then we are in a sense omniscient - > although it is not a useful omniscience since we cannot say which > possibility we will see next. > > We are not omniscient is because not all possibilities are realized in the > world we inhabit. Anything else is pure speculation. > I will ask you the same question as I did Brent: do you conclude from the fact that when you toss a coin it comes up either as head or tails that the world does not split into two parallel versions of you, one of which sees heads and the other tails? -- 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.
