On 9/7/2015 10:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 8 September 2015 at 09:19, Brent Meeker <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 9/7/2015 3:11 PM, 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?Sure, I infer that my hypothetical measure, or the model I used to to generate it, may have to some grain of truth, some generality beyond the special case.Would you also say that given a probability cannot be assigned to a coin toss if the world splits and both heads and tails occur in parallel worlds, and given that probabilities are actually useful with coin tosses, this is evidence that we don't live in a world where all coin toss outcomes are realised?
Is our failure to experience the parallel worlds evidence they don't exist? No. So it's not evidence either way.
Brent -- 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.
