On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:15 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2020, at 23:17, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > They clearly can't all be right, so either there is no actual probability > underlying the events and their calculations are misguided, or the theory > itself is incoherent. > > > The prediction must be valid for all the copies. Are you OK that the H-guy > predicts “W or M”, instead of “W”, > “M” and “W and M”, for one trial? > No, the only thing he can say, given the protocol, is that there will be a copy of me in W and a copy in M. Probabilities do not come into it. > Are you OK that the H-guy says (assuming mechanism of course) that he is > sure to get some coffee, but that he cannot be sure if it will taste like > American or Russian coffee? > The M coffee will taste Russian, and the W coffee will be undrinkable, like most American coffee. > Some will be wrong, but the majority will be correct. As the number of > iteration increase, we get near one. And in the “real scenario”, that is > confronted to the arithmetical reality which emulates all 2^aleph_0 > consistent continuations, those having the wrong probability constitue a > set of real of measure 0. > There is no "wrong" probability! All 1p probabilities are equally valid -- and equally wrong. Those disagreeing with any 1p probability form sets of zero measure in the limit of large N. Again, you use the 3p view to refute a 1p perception. And that is invalid. 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/CAFxXSLQR6af0-Q0K9uDgr8RjOu97Hz4-YKkg0P4sdbDNzFDm%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.
