On Monday, December 2, 2024 at 12:31:46 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Sunday, December 1, 2024 at 10:05:49 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: Probabilities are like energies. Physically they take different forms: frequentist, Bayesian, credence, wagers... And like energies there is there is a common mathematical theory which they obey and which can be used to transform between the different forms. Brent Concerning Deutsch, I didn't read the link, but since he's a MW cultist, I would expect him to downgrade the concept of probability by claiming it can't be rigorous defined -- since MW has a real problem defining probabilities among multiple branches. Of course, many fundamental concepts in physics and mathematics can't be defined *rigorously*, so I assume Deutsch is just blowing smoke up our collective butts in an effort to justify MW. In response to his BS, I gave the example of "finite mathematics" where infinities are disallowed because they seem unjustified from a rigorous POV. BTW, can you say something about the common mathematical theory underlying the different types of probabilities you mention. AG My point in referencing "finite mathematics" was just to illustrate that ambiguities can exist in ideas we take for granted, such as limits in mathematics, so what Deutsch is claiming is not at all unusual in the foundations of mathematics and physics. AG On 12/1/2024 12:48 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, November 30, 2024 at 1:55:52 PM UTC-7 John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 10:10 AM smitra <[email protected]> wrote: *> What is also worthwhile to consider in these discussions about probability, Born rule etc. the fact that probability cannot be rigorously defined in a physical context as David Deutsch explains here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc&t=1036s <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc&t=1036s>* *Interesting video, thank you for recommending it. I think Deutsch does a good job highlighting the fact that any theory that attempts to deal with fundamental reality is going to have a problem when it comes to probability, but if Many Worlds has a problem rigorously defining probability then the other fundamental quantum interpretations do it even more poorly. And if Many Worlds is true, or nearly so, and if intelligent creatures who enjoy gambling exist in some of those worlds, then they are going to develop something close to the thing that in English is called "probability" and they are not going to worry very much about a rigorous definition of it or the deep philosophical problems that it may entail. * * John K Clark * No question about it; Deutsch is a genius and fits the definition of cultist. Consider this; can we ever get to the limit in any calculus problem? And this isn't a version of Zeno's paradox. AG -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/23e88f0f-5105-429a-8b23-229d6ee3cff6n%40googlegroups.com.
