On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 1:35 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > Just to be clear, are you OK with P(W) = 1/2 in the WM-duplicatipon, when > “W” refers to the first person experience? > No. As I have said before, the H-man has no basis on which to assign any probability at all to the possibility that he will see W (or M) tomorrow, The trouble is that probabilities tend to be defined by the limit of relative frequencies over a large number of trials. If you perform the WM-duplication N times, there will be 2^N "first person experiences" and many of them will assign probabilities greatly different from 0.5. There is no "intrinsic probability" in your scenario. This is also Adrian Kent's objection to MWI, and it will also nullify any benefit you might seek to gain from the "frequency operator" -- every "first person" will get a different eigenvalue in the limit of infinite trials.. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLT7XucAw9EGuTCtUaGfcQL%3DoFPmXpD6bbVTznaGRThAWw%40mail.gmail.com.
