On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:05 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2020, at 02:37, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > > And if the probabilities are to be objective > > > They have to be at least first person plural. > 'Objective', as I use the word here, means 'interpersonally agreed'. In your terminology, that would be 1pp since there is no 3p in many-worlds. We should be able to make bet. But that is the case if instead of > duplicating the H-guy, you duplicate the H-Guy + the person (the witness) > with whom he make a bet. In that case, if you bet “W”, and the witness bet > “M" then in W you win the bet, and in M you lost the bet. In the irate > case, you recover the idea that by using the Pascal Triangle, you can > maximise your benefits, and this shows that we can use the Dutch Argument > to define some probabilities in simple duplication scenario (to be sure, > the real case will be in arithmetic where such simple case scenario can be > shown to never occur, and that is why the math is a bit more sophisticated > there). > If I understand you here, I think this is wrong. In the iterated case, the 1pp probabilities are those calculated on each branch, and they are all valid -- there is no 3p view (God's-eye-view) to contradict them. In the WM duplication, then the copies are able to meet and compare diaries, so things are different, but I am interest in the Many-worlds case, not classical single-world duplication. 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/CAFxXSLRuu%2BDSFnz%2BgCGaPEtaEE8hc63sg0w3eWj-ruFFjjiy7A%40mail.gmail.com.
