On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 1:05 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > On 22-11-2022 02:45, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:12 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > > > >> The problem lies with the notion of probability, he explains here > >> that > >> it cannot refer to anything in the physics world as an exact > >> statement: > >> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc&t=1036s > >> > >> That's then a problem for a fundamental theory of physics as such a > >> theory must refer to statements about nature that are exactly true. > > > > No statements in physics are exactly true. > > > > Bruce > > > > The problem with probability is actually the other way around. It's > impossible to rigorously define probability in purely physical terms. > Therefore the exact formulation of the laws of physics cannot refer to > probability. >
They can if probability is taken to be a primitive, not definable in terms of any physical thing or process. In other words, we use probability in physics the same way as we use mathematics. Mathematics cannot be rigorously defined in purely physical terms -- it is defined logically in its own terms, but it finds application in physics. Deutsch might just as well argue that we can do physics without mathematics..... 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQPearE5G-O%2BVfWo4ys139ATz7%2BCmT51ziFaG7K_QwPjw%40mail.gmail.com.
