Re: Bayesian boxes and Independence of Scales

From: Wei Dai <weidai.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 20:25:41 -0700

On Sat, May 15, 1999 at 07:58:27PM -0400, GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> I agree the conclusion is weird. However, As Wei Dai mentioned we need to
> revise the concept of probability in the context of the MW. The logarithmic
> distribution was just an example. IN FACT THE DISTRIBUTION CAN BE ANYTHING AS
> LONG AS IT SATISFIES THE EXPECTATION VALUE = m FOR THE SECOND BOX..

I haven't been following this thread closely, but I want to point out that
I no longer advocate a revision of the concept of probability. I
originally suggested a revision to fix some paradoxes in the section of
Max Tegmark's paper about predicting my future observations based on my
current observations. But now I realize that section is really about
predicting the the observations of someone chosen randomly from a group
related to me by some personal identity relationship, and the paradoxes
disappear when seen from this perspective.

I still have a problem with that section because it assumes that personal
identity is inherent in the mathematical structure of the universe,
whereas I consider the relationship to be subjective and arbitrary, but
this is a seperate issue.
Received on Sat May 15 1999 - 20:26:32 PDT