3 ms·
Nothing prevents you from "going Bayesian" in figuring out how compatible a hypothesis is with reality. Bayesians have no issues with probabilities representing
by kgwgk 4y ago
Nothing prevents you from "going Bayesian" in figuring out how compatible a hypothesis is with reality. Bayesians have no issues with probabilities representing frequencies even though frequentists cannot understand probabilities representing uncertainty.
- jxy 4y agoSeriously? Frequentists simply build infinite amount of parallel Universes and ask what percentage of the Universes It occurs with certainty.
- layer8 4y agoThat sounds like a pretty sensible approach if you believe in Many-Worlds.
- konschubert 4y agoIt has nothing to do with that. Even if there is a single world, it is enough to make the thought experiment.
- layer8 4y agoMy point is, in Many-Words the parallel universes aren’t just a thought experiment, they are the actual real future of your current self. The computed probabilities do not describe potentialities then, but actualities.
- kgwgk 4y agoProbabilities can represent uncertainty about actual things - things that are hardly going to be different even if you strongly imagine your current self branching out into a myriad of parallel universes.
- kgwgk 4y agoWhat’s the probability that Russian drones attacked the Nord Stream pipeline? It’s the fraction of parallel universes where that happened - or something.