On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:21 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2020, at 04:11, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't really understand your comment. I was thinking of Bruno's > WM-duplication. You could impose the idea that each duplication at each > branch point on every branch is an independent Bernoulli trial with p = 0.5 > on this (success being defined arbitrarily as W or M). Then, if these > probabilities carry over from trial to trial, you end up with every binary > sequence, each with weight 1/2^N. Summing sequences with the same number of > 0s and 1s, you get the Pascal Triangle distribution that Bruno wants. > > The trouble is that such a procedure is entirely arbitrary. The only > probability that one could objectively assign to say, W, on each Bernoulli > trial is one, > > > That is certainly wrong. If you are correct, then P(W) = 1 is written in > the personal diary, > I did say "objectively assign". In other words, this was a 3p comment. You confuse 1p with 3p yet again. which is taken with in the duplication box. But then the guy in M will open > its diary and see that his P = 1 is refuted. It is enough that once copy > refute a prediction to abandon it as valid. > > since W certainly occurs for each trial. > > > Not from the first person perspective. > Same comment as above. You use a basic confusion between 3p and 1p perspectives to criticize the clear points that I am making. Sometimes it could be M, and the first person experience of “felling being > in M” is logical incompatible (with the protocole described here) with the > experience of “feeling to be in W”. No copies at all will feel to be in the > two cities at once. That never occurs. > I have never claimed that they will confuse 0 and 1 in their binary diary records. It is just that on repetition of the duplication trials, all diaries record different strings. And each diary is a legitimate source from which an observer can infer a probability value. These probability values cover the complete range p contained in [0,1]. There is no unique or natural probability for this scenario. Any probability interpretation that you impose is entirely arbitrary. Bruce > > Bruno > > In other words, there is no natural probability associated with this > duplication process, so imposing one is ad hoc and arbitrary. > > -- 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/CAFxXSLQ0a%2BzKLd1%2BNzN2qLDi_Osa4r%2BqP9BS9W%2BtWfD_np-z%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.
