Hi Quentin >> I don't refuse to read them. You've cited *one* paper, I didn't have time to >> read it, I will this week.
Ah so you dismiss things that you havent read then? Impressive! >> The abstract though did not reject probability calculus, only the >> interpretation of what it means. It is clear that in MWI setting probability >> is not about what happen and what does not, If I say that x will happen with 50% probability I certainly am talking about things happening or not happening and if it is "clear" that probability is not about that in MWI, then it is clear that probability in MWI is not about probability. >> but about frequency and measure... that doesn't render probability >> meaningless... proof is, as you always are in *one* world, your measure will >> follow the predicted distribution. So you're strategy is to try and semantically wriggle out of the claims you make? Pretend the words you use have a different meaning than they really do? >> f you want to assert thing and not back them up, well... But I did back up what I said. You couldn't be arsed to read the paper about Deutsch I offered, remember? You're the only one here refusing to back up claims. Perhaps you should give up on yourself? Here's Deutsh from the abstract of his paper: "Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions" "The probabilistic predictions of quantum theory are conventionally obtained from a special probabilistic axiom. But that is unnecessary because all the practical consequences of such predictions follow from the remaining, non- probabilistic, axioms of quantum theory, together with the non-probabilistic part of classical decision theory" Read it carefully. It makes clear that he believes that all relevent predictions can be made from "non probabilistic axioms". You're not going to turn around and argue that he meant 'probabilistic axioms' are you? And from the conclusion: "No probabilistic axiom is required in quantum theory. A decision maker who believes only the non-probabilistic part of the theory, and is 'rational' in the sense defined by a strictly non-probabilistic restriction of classical decision theory, will make all decisions that depend on predicting the outcomes of measurements as if those outcomes were determined by stochastic processes, with probabilities given by axiom (1). (However, in other respects he will not behave as if he believed that stochastic processes occur. For instance if asked whether they occur he will certainly reply 'no', because the non-probabilistic axioms of quantum theory require the state to evolve in a continuous and deterministic way.)" Now if you want to make the case that Deutsch 'does not reject probability' whilst he is insisting, indeed founding his reputation on the claim that 'no probabilistic axiom is required in quantum theory' be my guest. Im always up for a laugh. All the best Chris. From: allco...@gmail.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:43:33 +0100 Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 2014-02-25 8:43 GMT+01:00 chris peck <chris_peck...@hotmail.com>: Hi Quentin >>That's nonsense, The point wasn't whether you think its nonsense or not. I couldn't care less about that. we were arguing about whether there are Oxford Dons who adopt the same standpoint as me, and given your little outburst above I think you've just discovered that there are. And that they are publishing these ideas in respected and peer reviewed journals. Just to recap then: It is perfectly respectable to reject the notion of subjective uncertainty without abandoning MWI. Just as I said. >> and contrary to observed fact. I always wince when you throw that one out. How does one break it to the angriest member of a list that they are continually begging the question? >> David Deutsch does not reject probability... Sure he does, he swaps out the Born rule for rational decision theory (+ amendments to make it compatible with MWI). There isn't probability, but we should act 'as if' there was. Its what he's famous for, Quentin. o_O... he doesn't reject probability usage. >>or could you please show a quote where he does. Do your own homework, mate. I'm not your little quote monkey. Ok, I give up talking to you, if you want to assert thing and not back them up, well... I've kindly described to you what I think people like Deutsch and Wallace argue, I've supplied papers which you've refused to read. I don't refuse to read them. You've cited *one* paper, I didn't have time to read it, I will this week. The abstract though did not reject probability calculus, only the interpretation of what it means. It is clear that in MWI setting probability is not about what happen and what does not, but about frequency and measure... that doesn't render probability meaningless... proof is, as you always are in *one* world, your measure will follow the predicted distribution... so what's your point ? if you disagree you need display the same generosity and explain to me what you think they are arguing and how that is different. See upper Quentin Waving your hands in the air demanding more and more to unceremoniously and uncritically ditch is no-ones idea of fun. All the best Chris. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:26:52 +1300 Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of "you" has been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split. Or to put it another way, you (now) will become you (who sees spin up) and you (who sees spin down), which by then will be two different people. -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
