On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:36:11 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le mer. 5 févr. 2025, 22:25, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 1:36:55 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: Brent, I went through the document you sent, and it outlines the different interpretations of probability: mathematical, physical symmetry, degree of belief, and empirical frequency. But none of these resolve the core issue in a single-history universe—where probability is supposed to describe "possibilities" that, in the end, never had any reality. Your frequentist approach assumes that, given enough trials, outcomes will appear in proportions that match their theoretical probabilities. But in a finite, single-history universe, there is no guarantee that will ever happen. Some events with nonzero probability simply won’t occur—not because of statistical fluctuations, but because history only plays out one way. In that case, were those possibilities ever really possible? If something assigned a probability of 10% never happens in the actual course of the universe, then in what meaningful way was it ever a possibility? You argue that if all possibilities are realized, probability loses its meaning. But in a single-history world, probability is just as meaningless because it describes outcomes that never had a chance of being real. If probability is supposed to quantify potential realities, then in a framework where only one reality exists, probability is nothing more than a retrospective justification—it has no actual explanatory power. The math remains internally consistent, but it becomes an empty formalism, detached from anything real. The whole structure relies on pretending that unrealized events still "exist" in some abstract sense, even though they never affect reality. That’s the contradiction at the heart of the single-history view. It uses probability to describe possibilities while simultaneously denying that those possibilities ever had a chance to be real. Why do you assume that some non-zero probabilities never occur? How could you know this? Meanwhile, you prefer a theory, MIi, that can't be verified. Puzzling preferences. AG AG, I assume that some nonzero probabilities never occur because, in a single-history universe with finite time and a unique trajectory, there is no guarantee that every possible outcome will ever be realized. If history unfolds in only one way, then there will inevitably be events assigned nonzero probability that simply never happen. That’s not an assumption—it’s an unavoidable consequence of having only one realized history. That's an assumption. What isn't an assumption is that the worlds of the MWI can never be contacted. This is your preference. AG Meanwhile, you act as if probability distributions in a single-history universe retain meaning even when certain outcomes never manifest. But if an event with a 10% probability never happens in the actual history of the universe, then in what sense was that probability meaningful? The theory assigned a chance to something that was never a real possibility in the only existing history. That turns probability into a purely abstract tool with no ontological grounding—it describes things that were never going to happen anyway. As for verification, the issue is not about choosing a theory that "can’t be verified." The problem is that the single-history view relies on unobservable, nonexistent possibilities to justify probability while simultaneously denying their existence. It wants the predictive power of probability theory but refuses to acknowledge the implications of what probability actually represents. That’s not just puzzling—it’s self-contradictory. Le mer. 5 févr. 2025, 20:18, Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> a écrit : On 2/5/2025 2:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Bruce, That still doesn't address the core issue. If the universe has a unique history and a finite existence, then there is a fundamental limit to the number of repetitions that can ever occur. There is no guarantee that all possible outcomes will ever be realized, no matter how large N is. Some events with nonzero probability simply will never happen. That alone is enough to undermine frequentism in a single-history framework—it relies on the assumption that probabilities reflect long-run frequencies, but if the history is finite and unique, the necessary "long run" does not exist. I recommend that you never play cards for money. Even in an infinite universe, if history is still unique, there is no mechanism ensuring that all outcomes occur in proportions that match their theoretical probabilities. Yet they do match. QM is the most accurate, predictive theory there is. Some possibilities with nonzero probability may remain unrealized forever, making their assigned probabilities meaningless in any real sense. They were never actual possibilities in the first place—just theoretical artifacts with no impact on reality. Your argument assumes that probabilities describe reality in the single-world framework, but without an ensemble where all possibilities exist in some way, this assumption collapses. Where they all exist the probabilities (according to you) become 1, and "probability" is meaningless. I think you are just confused because you don't distinguish between the theory of probability and it's several different applications. You seem to think the world has to be only one certain way for it to apply. Try reading the attached. Brent Probabilities become detached from what actually happens and instead become abstract formalism with no grounding in the real world. That’s the problem: the single-world view wants to use probability theory as if all possibilities have meaning while simultaneously denying that they do. In contrast, in a framework where all possibilities are realized in different branches, probability retains its explanatory power. It describes actual distributions of outcomes rather than pretending that unrealized events still somehow "exist" in a purely mathematical sense. If the universe is unique, and history is unique, then probability has no true foundation—it’s just a game with numbers, untethered from what actually happens. Quentin -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9575cf10-2b1e-4d42-a6e4-ee0992f757aa%40gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9575cf10-2b1e-4d42-a6e4-ee0992f757aa%40gmail.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-li...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cac56d63-3597-4bd2-b8a6-9f0410b08930n%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cac56d63-3597-4bd2-b8a6-9f0410b08930n%40googlegroups.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/0ef39ffb-372c-4a71-a2d7-9b2705b23a21n%40googlegroups.com.
