On 11/21/2022 4:33 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:08 AM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:

    He's wrong that frequentism does not empirically support
    probability statements.  He goes off on a tangent by referring to
    "other gamblers".  Nothing in physics is certain, yet Deutsch
    takes a bunch of definite assertions and claims they alone are the
    real physics.


His critique of frequentism is just a recap of arguments that are well known -- you cannot ground probability theory in frequentism, or the idea that probabilities are nothing more than ratios of long-run frequencies. Long-run frequencies might approximate the probabilities, but they cannot be used to ground probability theory -- for well known reasons. I agree that he goes off on a number of irrelevant tangents, and he is wrong to suppose that frequentism is a main-stream theory of probability (at least, these days).

But frequencies are how we test probabilistic theories.

Brent


Bruce

    On 11/20/2022 4:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
    On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 2:52 AM smitra <[email protected]> wrote:

        Probability cannot be a fundamental concept in physics as
        explained
        here:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc


    I'm afraid Deutsch is a bit too glib in this lecture. He hasn't,
    despite his best efforts, removed probability from physics. For
    example, in quantum mechanics, he has not explained why, if one
    measures the z-spin of a spin-half particle prepared in an
    eigenstate of x-spin, one gets only one result -- either
    z-spin-up or z-spin-down. If one has eliminated probability, one
    should be able to explain which result one gets, and why. It is
    no solution to say that with many-worlds, that both results are
    obtained by disjoint copies of the experimenter. The experimenter
    is just one copy, and one would have to explain the result for
    each individual separately. Many worlds does not explain why I,
    for example, see only z-spin-up and not z-spin-down. To make
    sense of that, we need a viable concept of probability and the
    Born rule.

    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/CAFxXSLQgSxrbySZNq-1HOFOu_7aie5y3Av3bMcYvB0Gp7hyBHg%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQgSxrbySZNq-1HOFOu_7aie5y3Av3bMcYvB0Gp7hyBHg%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/a1dd8889-5c00-87fa-3911-8f94f1c09a69%40gmail.com.

Reply via email to