> On 4 Mar 2020, at 13:00, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 08:40, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 4:21 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > On 2/27/2020 3:45 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> That is probably what all this argument is actually about -- the maths show >> that there are no probabilities. Because there are no unique probabilities >> in the classical duplication case, the concept of probability has been shown >> to be inadmissible in the deterministic (Everettian) quantum case. The >> appeal by people like Deutsch and Wallace to betting quotients, or quantum >> credibility measures, are just ways of forcing a probabilistic >> interpretation on to quantum mechanics by hand -- they are not derivations >> of probability from within the deterministic theory. There are no >> probabilities in the deterministic theory, even from the 1p perspective, >> because the data are consistent with any prior assignment of a probability >> measure. > > The probability enters from the self-location uncertainty; which is other > terms is saying: Assume each branch has the same probability (or some > weighting) for you being in that branch. Then that is the probability that > you have observed the sequence of events that define that branch. > > I think that is Sean Carroll's approach. I am uncertain as to whether this > really works or not. The concept of a 'weight' or 'thickness' for each branch > is difficult to reconcile with the first-person experience of probability: > which is obtained within the branch, so is independent of any overall > 'weight'. But that aside, self-locating uncertainty is just another idea > imposed on quantum mechanics and, like decision-theoretic ideas, it is > without theoretical foundation -- it is just imposed by fiat on a > deterministic theory. It makes probability a subjective notion imposed on a > theory that is supposedly objective: there is an objective probability that a > radioactive nucleus will decay in a certain time period -- independent of our > subjective impressions, or self-location. (I can develop this thought > further, if required, but I think it shows Sean's approach to fail.) > > Probability derived from self-locating uncertainty is an idea independent of > any particular physics. It is also independent of any theory of consciousness,
I agree. It is a priori independent. Now, if we accept a theory of consciousness based on Mechanism, the self-locating in arithmetic is unavoidable. It needs some non mechanist thesis to associated the mind with the appearance of matter. > since we can imagine a non-conscious observer reasoning in the same way. I agree. Non conscious but duplicable being are led to the same statistic. That is clear in our context, if only because it uses only a third person notion of first person, the personal memory. QM (without collapse even give a model where “duplication” can operate on a continuum. Everett use more “duplicability” than “Mechanism”, although in his long text, he does use some mechanism to describe the discrete memory of the observer when doing a sequence of measurement. > To some people it seems trivially obvious, to others it seems very strange. And some people find it obvious, until they heard the boss saying it is very strange. The contrary happens too, and is as much annoying. Sometimes people seem to fear their own thinking abilities. > I don’t know if which group one falls into correlates with any other beliefs > or attitudes. Many people dislike the idea that they are not unique. Some people believe wrongly that “many-worlds” or “all computations” makes everything trivial, but computationalism shows that this is not the case (but that requires some knowledge in mathematical logic). As long as theology is not back to science (where it was born), people will continue to believe that they can believe in what their want. The separation of theology or metaphysics from science leaves the domain to the charlatans, who can then exploit fear and hope, to steal money and control people. It leads to the separation of the human science and the exact science, which makes not only human science inexact and exact science inhuman, but it makes exact science inexact and human science inhuman. Bruno > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypWb-n24FgchakZWNBw9ifk7HYdtz5LQnDENstYM_0xVaw%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypWb-n24FgchakZWNBw9ifk7HYdtz5LQnDENstYM_0xVaw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/534B04C9-1243-4654-8B93-40F7759F96EA%40ulb.ac.be.
