I understand this move but I don’t like it. I think that in the fullness of time, we’ll see that probability is not a kind of preference, and there is a “fact of the matter” about the effects that actions have, i.e. that reality is objective not subjective.
But I don’t like arguments from subjective anticipation, subjective anticipation is a projective error that humans make, as many worlds QM has already proved.
Indeed MW QM combined with Robin’s Mangled Worlds is a good microcosm for how the multiverse at other levels ought to turn out. Subjective anticipation out, but still objective facts about what happens.
I note that since the argument from subjective anticipation is invalid, there is still the possibility that we live in an infinite structure with no canonical measure, in which case Vladimir would be right.
I understand this move but I don’t like it. I think that in the fullness of time, we’ll see that probability is not a kind of preference, and there is a “fact of the matter” about the effects that actions have, i.e. that reality is objective not subjective.
I think that probability is a tool for preference, but I also think that there is a fact of the matter about the effects of actions, and that reality of that effect is objective. This effect is at the level of the sample space (based on all mathematical structures maybe) though, of “brittle math”, while the ways you measure the “probability” of a given (objective) event depend on what preference (subjective goals) you are trying to optimize for.
I understand this move but I don’t like it. I think that in the fullness of time, we’ll see that probability is not a kind of preference, and there is a “fact of the matter” about the effects that actions have, i.e. that reality is objective not subjective.
But I don’t like arguments from subjective anticipation, subjective anticipation is a projective error that humans make, as many worlds QM has already proved.
Indeed MW QM combined with Robin’s Mangled Worlds is a good microcosm for how the multiverse at other levels ought to turn out. Subjective anticipation out, but still objective facts about what happens.
I note that since the argument from subjective anticipation is invalid, there is still the possibility that we live in an infinite structure with no canonical measure, in which case Vladimir would be right.
I think that probability is a tool for preference, but I also think that there is a fact of the matter about the effects of actions, and that reality of that effect is objective. This effect is at the level of the sample space (based on all mathematical structures maybe) though, of “brittle math”, while the ways you measure the “probability” of a given (objective) event depend on what preference (subjective goals) you are trying to optimize for.