There are two concepts of probability and statistics, Bayesianism and frequentism (orthodox view), which formulate probability in somewhat different ways. I would say that quantum mechanics might be the most rigorous definition of probability. I would be tempted to say it is more Bayesian than frequentist.
LC On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 8:15:19 PM UTC-6 [email protected] wrote: > On 22-11-2022 02:47, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 11/21/2022 5:12 PM, smitra 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. > > > > Who says so? Physics never makes exact measurements. Why should the > > theory do something that the physics can't? Deutsch is like the > > scholastics, he thinks physics is just a branch of mathematical logic. > > > > Brent > > But physics cannot implement a rigorous notion of probability. So, that > then makes QM in the traditional formulation problematic. > > Saibal > -- 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/54ebbfed-1a27-4b4e-bcc1-0cdf1186398bn%40googlegroups.com.
