3 ms·
Weird, I can't reply directly. Peters (and you, I assume) are taking a strong philosophical stance on the meaning of probability. Lots of people would disagre
by QuesnayJr 6y ago
Weird, I can't reply directly.
Peters (and you, I assume) are taking a strong philosophical stance on the meaning of probability. Lots of people would disagree with you. Essentially all Bayesians would disagree with you, for example.
- ReflectedImage 6y agoYeah reply seems to be a bit buggy. "strong philosophical stance on the meaning of probability" ??? It's taken directly from thermodynamics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergodic_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergodic_hypothesis You would be arguing directly with the laws of thermodynamics.
- QuesnayJr 6y agoThis is what I've always suspected was the subtext of this. "We're physicists, and what we learned while thinking about microcanonical ensemble is all you need to know about probability. No, we have nothing to learn from the hundreds of probabilists and statisticians on the subject of probability, or the hundred-year old debate on the meaning of probability." There are more things in heaven and earth than dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/
- kgwgk 6y agoThere are a thing or two that they could learn from other physicists as well. https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/theory.1.pdf https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/theory.1.pdf “It is concluded that statistical mechanics need not be regarded as a physical theory dependent for its validity on the truth of additional assumptions not contained in the laws of mechanics (such as ergodicity, metric transitivity, equal a priori probabilities, etc.).”