On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 8:49 PM George Kahrimanis <gekah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Strictly speaking, zero information implies "undefined probability", >> >> >> >> Sure, but [...] >> > > *> Sorry, but if it is undefined then there is no "but".* > In this case there is a "but" because thanks to quantum mechanics there is NOT zero information about what will happen when a photon of unknown polarization encounters a polarizer oriented in the horizontal direction; quantum mechanics says there are 2 and only 2 possible outcomes to that situation and it also says there is no reason to favor one of those outcomes over the other * > my point was to prepare the reader for a version of the Born rule > concerning large samples only, instead of single outcomes.* > Such a version would be less powerful and less useful because if a gambler wished to make money he would be foolish to ignore the Born rule when placing bets or setting odds, even for one time events. So there doesn't seem to be much point in developing such a version. >>> *Although Everett's argument (whose improvement I have proposed) grants >>> that in the long run (that is, large samples) the Born Rule is practically >>> certain to apply, this is not technically the same as probability for each >>> single outcome -- though I admit that it works the same,* >> >> >> >> I would argue that if X works the same as Y then technically X is Y. >> > > *> Careful! You trimmed off the end of my sentence: "... it works the > same, to trigger an instinctive impulse". * > I trimmed your sentence because it was redundant. As I said if X works the same as Y then technically X is Y, so obviously X would trigger the same instinctive impulse that Y does, and X would trigger everything else that Y triggers too because X works the same as Y. If X works the same as Y then how does it still make sense to say that X is not Y? > *> Sorry for my sloppy syntax: I meant "it works the same, with regard to > triggering an instinctive impulse". Noy always, not necessarily.* > If the use of probability, even for single occurrences, triggers an instinctive impulse then it must've conferred an evolutionary advantage over people in which that instinctive impulse was lacking, so the use of probability, even for single occurrences, must confer a survival advantage because Evolution cannot be fooled by philosophical bafflegab. If a rational person were forced to play Russian roulette (a one time event) but was given a choice between using a revolver that had 1 bullet and 5 empty chambers and a revolver that had 5 bullets and 1 empty chamber, which revolver would a rational person choose? > Instead of "technically" you should have "practically", in the sense "a > technical distinction without a practical difference". > I used that word because you originally said "*the Born Rule is practically certain to apply, this is not technically the same as probability for each single outcome -- though I admit that it works the same*". >>> for a RATIONAL decision theory this probability is not granted, >> >> >> *>> IF* that's true *THEN* a RATIONAL man will consistently make >> predictions about the outcome of an experiment that are inferior to the >> predictions that an IRRATIONAL man would make. So there would be no >> point to rationality or being "rational". *THEREFORE* I conclude that >> your above statement is not true. >> > > > (I emphasised "rational" as opposed to an experimentally derived > decision theory.) > I can't think of anything more rational than basing your ideas about how the world works on observation and experimentation. Aristotle wrote that women had fewer teeth than men, it's known that he was married, twice in fact, yet he never thought of just looking into his wife's mouth and counting. Aristotle thought that just by sitting and thinking he could figure out how the world works. Aristotle was not being rational. > > > Moreover, rationality is about organising certain basic irrational > pursuits, typically thinkgs like security, food, sex, and entertainment; > priorities are for to the agent to define. > Entertainment perhaps but, going back for billions of years, if every single one of your ancestors, without exception, was not obsessed with security, food and sex, you would not exist. And the same could be said about every other organism on the planet > *> Not a black-or-white dichotomy, therefore*. > I think it is a black-or-white dichotomy, an organism can get its genes into the next generation or it cannot *> Example. When I have a choice between acting recklessly and acting > carefully, and my spirit of adventure overcomes my instict of survival, a > rational argument IMO is to think of my insurance: they will increase the > premium or drop me if they classify me as a reckless man. I need insurance > because of uncertainty, to protect my future selves as well as my loved > ones in future branches in which I will not exist.* In Evolution there is always a trade-off, being too courageous can reduce your chances of getting your genes into the next generation, but being too cowardly can too. If I'm too courageous I might get in a fight I have no chance of winning but if I'm too cowardly and refuse to take any risks I might starve to death. The best adapted organism for survival would be one in the middle of the brave-coward bell curve but admires those on the far edge of the curve who have more courage than they do and likes to hang around with them; because then you can let them take the lead attacking the gigantic woolly mammoth while you play a secondary role, be brave enough to make it clear that your participation in the hunt is useful but leave the extreme heroics to others. If the hero is successful in the hunt he can't eat an entire Mammoth by himself so you get some of the leftovers. If he's unsuccessful and gets killed then find somebody else who's braver than you, hang around with them, and hope he has better luck. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> wmm -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv39SkrSFtFUK%3Ds6ZTQfzbLvtVNtXWd%3Dcde-WtVOJULW_Q%40mail.gmail.com.
