On 8/09/2015 4:56 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 8 September 2015 at 16:50, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 8/09/2015 3:59 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 8 September 2015 at 08:52, Bruce Kellett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 8/09/2015 8:11 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015, Brent Meeker
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 9/6/2015 10:49 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, September 7, 2015, Brent Meeker
<[email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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
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?
I would conclude that a coin toss does not provide any evidence for
multiple worlds or a split. The only evidence we have from this data is
that the outcome of the toss is uncertain. There is no evidence there
for any split of anything.
Bruce
--
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.
