On Thu, 26 May 2005, Brent Meeker wrote:

I agree with all you say. But note that the case of finite sets is not really any different. You still have to define a measure. It may seem that there is one, compelling, natural measure - but that's just Laplace's principle of indifference applied to integers. The is no more justification for it in finite sets than infinite ones. That there are fewer primes than non-primes in set of natural numbers less than 100 doesn't make the probability of a prime smaller *unless* you assign the same measure to each number.

Brent Meeker

I'll answer both Brent and Hal (m6556) here.

Yup, I hadn't thought through the measure issue properly. Several conclusions from this discussion:

* As Brent says, you always have to assume a measure. Sometimes a measure seems so "natural" you forget you're doing it, as above. Another example is in an infinite homogeneous universe, where equally a uniform measure seems natural, and also limiting frequencies over large volumes are well defined, as per Hal's message.

* As Hal points out, it *is* possible to assign probability measures to countably-infinite sets.

* Alternatively, you can assign a non-normalizable measure (presumably uniform) and take limiting frequencies. But then as per Cantor the answer does depend on your ordering, which is something extra you are adding to the definition of the set (even for numerical sequences).

* Different lines of argument can easily lead to different "natural" measures for the same set, e.g. Hal's "Universal Distribution" vs. Laplacian indifference for the integers.

* For me, the only way to connect a measure with a probability in the context of an "everything" theory is for the measure to represent the density of universes (or observers or observer-moments if you factor that in as well).

* Since the White Rabbit^** argument implicitly assumes a measure, as it stands it can't be definitive.

* But the arbitrariness of the measure itself becomes the main argument against the everything thesis, since the main claimed benefit of the thesis is that it removes arbitrary choices in defining reality.

Paddy Leahy


^**  "This is a song about Alice, remember?"  --- Arlo Guthrie


Reply via email to