On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 8:50 AM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> Le ven. 14 févr. 2020 à 22:48, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 1:35 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> 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. >> > > That's false, most of them will infer the correct probability... > Wrong again. Respond to Kent's argument if you disagree. (arxiv:0905.0624) Bruce > >> 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSRF47M9TdmKScCgtE4vv2iy0G3Nx95zUwhZik8_ywohw%40mail.gmail.com.
