Bruce, Physics is indeed more than existential angst, but it is also more than abstract formalism detached from reality. If probabilities are merely tools to predict outcomes in a single-history universe, then they serve as effective calculations but lack explanatory depth. My point is not about what "my guts feel," but about the conceptual foundation of probabilities in a framework where only one outcome is realized for all eternity.
You claim that probabilities predict future outcomes, but in a single-history framework, unrealized possibilities are pure abstraction. If a certain outcome never happens in this unique history, then its calculated probability was never more than a mathematical placeholder—it had no grounding in the actual structure of reality. You assert that the prior probability doesn’t change, but in a single-history world, the realized sequence of events is all there is, and unrealized alternatives have no causal relevance. Their prior probability becomes meaningless because they never existed, even as genuine possibilities. If you’re comfortable with the idea that probabilities are purely formal tools with no deeper connection to reality, fine. But let’s not pretend that this view provides a robust explanation of why certain outcomes occur. It reduces the entire framework to "it just happened this way," where probabilities are useful for predictions but empty of any ontological substance. This isn’t about dinner or feelings—it’s about whether the tools we use are tied to something real or are just abstractions we project onto a world with only one realized history. If physics reduces to formalism devoid of grounding, then it is no better than playing with numbers. Quentin Le ven. 10 janv. 2025, 09:04, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> a écrit : > On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 6:13 PM Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Le ven. 10 janv. 2025, 07:58, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> a >> écrit : >> >>> That is just patent nonsense. Formal tools are quite capable of giving >>> the right answer for the realized world; (and the right answer is what >>> actually happens.) >>> >>> I agree that formal tools can provide correct predictions for the >> realized world. However, in a single-history framework, the "right answer" >> they provide—the actual outcome—reduces probabilities to mere retrospective >> descriptors. >> > > Nothing retrospective about it. The probabilities are predictors of future > outcomes. > > Probabilities only have meaning if the ensemble of possibilities they >> refer to has some grounding, even if not directly realized. Otherwise, we >> are attributing significance to calculations about scenarios that never >> existed and had no potential to exist within the single-history paradigm. >> > > But the essence of the probability is that we calculate the probabilities > that these alternatives might become actual. > > >> For example, if in this single-history universe, a particular outcome >> (e.g., rolling a four on a die) never occurs, then retroactively, its >> probability was effectively zero. >> > > Bullshit. The prior probability does not change, even if the outcome was > three rather than four. > > The formal tools used to calculate probabilities would still "predict" the >> possibilities, but in a framework where only one history is ever realized, >> those unrealized possibilities had no causal or explanatory connection to >> the outcome. The tools become exercises in abstraction, detached from the >> realized world. >> >> This is the crux of the issue: probabilities, in a single-history view, >> do not reflect anything about what could happen—they only describe what did >> happen after the fact. >> > > Where did that queer idea come from? > > Without a substantive ensemble of possibilities, probabilities lose their >> role as meaningful descriptors of potential and become post-hoc >> justifications for a single outcome. In frameworks where possibilities are >> real (e.g., many-worlds), probabilities gain coherence because they >> describe distributions over actualized outcomes, not abstract, non-existent >> alternatives. >> >> The point is not that formal tools fail to provide correct answers—they >> do. The issue is that, in a single-history framework, the connection >> between those tools and the nature of reality becomes tenuous, leaving the >> probabilities they calculate feeling arbitrary and conceptually empty. >> > > So it all boils down to what you had for dinner -- or what your guts feel. > Physics is more than a matter of personal existential angst. > > Bruce > > -- > 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 view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTOMfRC%3DYRzb5Zpr%3DXunJAwTfo_VWr4KkL33%3D7V-AU-MA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTOMfRC%3DYRzb5Zpr%3DXunJAwTfo_VWr4KkL33%3D7V-AU-MA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kApD9xC00Mk%2B_EWN23zzapjngkWLJafZFo0C4Fsif%2B6-sQ%40mail.gmail.com.
