Hi Liz >> I can't see why the MWI's existing explanation of probability needs to have >> anything added.
I can't see that MWI has an explanation of probability. >>Probability in the MWI is deduced from the results of measurements by an >>experimenter. Effectively, if they assume that they inhabit a non-branching >>universe, they will regard the proportion of times a measurement comes out >>one way (spin up say) as the probability of that result occurring. If they >>assume an MWI perspective, however, the probabilty of that outcome is a >>measure of the proportion of experimenters who will be found in the spin-up >>branch. Is there something wrong with that? It doesn't really address the issue. It doesn't address the question 'what can I expect to see'. Of course, I can say this set of future mes will inhabit a spin up branch and this set of future mes will inhabit a spin down branch. So, this proportion of future mes will see spin up and this portion will see spin down. Asked what I (present me) can expect to see: well I can expect to see spin up and spin down.... Asked to assign a probability to seeing either result I assign 1 to both. Theirs is a method of calculating frequencies of me seeing ups and downs but not probabilities of seeing up or down. All the best Chris. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:30:48 +1300 Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 25 February 2014 13:05, chris peck <chris_peck...@hotmail.com> wrote: Since Everett there have been numerous attempts to smuggle an account of probability back into the theory, and more recent attempts: Deutsch, Wallace, Greaves etc., do that by abandoning the concept of subjective uncertainty altogether and replacing it with some kind of rational action principle. In otherwords, you can expect to see spin up and spin down, but you should act as if there was some objective bias towards one or the other. The approach comes complete with its own set of philosophical problems. I can't see why the MWI's existing explanation of probability needs to have anything added. Probability in the MWI is deduced from the results of measurements by an experimenter. Effectively, if they assume that they inhabit a non-branching universe, they will regard the proportion of times a measurement comes out one way (spin up say) as the probability of that result occurring. If they assume an MWI perspective, however, the probabilty of that outcome is a measure of the proportion of experimenters who will be found in the spin-up branch. Is there something wrong with that? -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
