I am not sure what this means. In what sense is probability in the mind, but energy isn’t? Or if energy is in the mind, as well, what physical characteristic is not and why?
In the standard LW map/territory distinction, probability, entropy, and temperature are all features of the map. Positions, momenta, and thus energy are features of the territory.
I understand that this doesn’t fit your metaphysics, but I think it should still be a useful concept. Probably.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I didn’t use “my metaphysics” here, just the standard physical realism, with maps and territories. Suppose energy is the feature of the territory… because it’s the “capacity to do work”, using the freshman definition. Why would you not define temperature as the capacity to transfer heat, or something? And probability is already defined as the rate of decay in many cases… or is that one in the mind, too?
Energy is a feature of the territory because it’s a function of position and momenta and other territory-things.
“Capacity to transfer heat” can mean a few things, and I’m not sure which you want. There’s already heat capacity, which is how much actual energy is stored per degree of temperature. To find the total internal heat energy you just have to integrate this up to the current temperature. The usual example here is an iceberg which stores much more heat energy than a cup of coffee, and yet heat flows from the coffee to the iceberg. If you mean something more like “quantity that determines which direction heat will flow between two systems,” then that’s just the definition I presented :p
I actually have trouble defending “probability is in the mind” in some physics contexts without invoking many-worlds. If it turns out that many-worlds is wrong and copenhagen, say, is right, then it will be useful to believe that for physical processes, probability is in the territory. I think. Not too sure about this.
“quantity that determines which direction heat will flow between two systems,”
Yeah, that’s a better definition :)
I actually have trouble defending “probability is in the mind” in some physics contexts without invoking many-worlds.
Feel free to elaborate. I’d think that probability is either in the map or in the territory, regardless of the context or your QM ontology, not sometimes here and sometimes there. And if it is in the territory, then so is entropy and temperature, right?
Say we have some electron in equal superposition of spin up and down, and we measure it.
In Copenhagen, the universe decides that it’s up or down right then and there, with 50% probability. This isn’t in the mind, since it’s not a product of our ignorance. It can’t be, because of Bell stuff.
In many-worlds, the universe does a deterministic thing and one branch measures spin up, one measures spin down. The probability is in my mind, because it’s a product of my ignorance—I don’t know what branch I’m in.
Hmm, so, assuming there is no experimental distinction between the two interpretations, there is no way to tell the difference between map and territory, not even in principle? That’s disconcerting. I guess I see what you mean by ” trouble defending “probability is in the mind”″.
If we inject some air into a box then close our eyes for a few seconds and shove in a partition, there is a finite chance of finding the nitrogen on one side and the oxygen on the other. Entropy can decrease, and that’s allowed by the laws of physics. The internal energy had better not change, though. That’s disallowed.
If energy changes, our underlying physical laws need to be reexamined. In the official dogma, these are firmly in the territory. If entropy goes down, our map was likely wrong.
I’d think that probability is either in the map or in the territory
Even if Copenhagen is right, I as a rational agent should still ought to use mind-probabilities. It may be the case that the quantum world is truly probabilistic-in-the-territory, but that doesn’t affect the fact that I don’t know the state of any physical system precisely.
You’re most of the way towards why you shouldn’t believe the Jaynes -Yudkowaky argument.
If you really can infer the absence of probability in the territory by reflecting on human reasoning alone, then the truth ofCLI versus MWI shouldn’t matter. If matters, as you seem to think, then armchair reasoning can’t do what Jaynes amd Yudkowsky think it can (in this case)
Its a reference to a bad,but locally popular argument from Jaynes. It holds, that since since, some forms of probability are subjective, they all are, and...ta-daaa ….the territory is therefore deterministic.
Name a probability that is not subjective. (And before you bring up quantum-mechanical collapse, I’d just like to say one thing: MWI. And before you complain about unfalsifiability, let me link you here.)
I don’t need definite proof of in-the-territory probability to support my actual point, which is that you can’t determine the existence or non existence of features of the territory by armchair reflection.
Of course you can’t determine whether something exists or not. There might yet be other probabilities out there that actually are objective. The fact that we have not discovered any such thing, however, is telling. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Therefore, it is likely—not certain, but likely—that no such probabilities exist. If your claim is that we cannot be certain of this, then of course you are correct. Such a claim, however, is trivial.
I am not sure what this means. In what sense is probability in the mind, but energy isn’t? Or if energy is in the mind, as well, what physical characteristic is not and why?
In the standard LW map/territory distinction, probability, entropy, and temperature are all features of the map. Positions, momenta, and thus energy are features of the territory.
I understand that this doesn’t fit your metaphysics, but I think it should still be a useful concept. Probably.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I didn’t use “my metaphysics” here, just the standard physical realism, with maps and territories. Suppose energy is the feature of the territory… because it’s the “capacity to do work”, using the freshman definition. Why would you not define temperature as the capacity to transfer heat, or something? And probability is already defined as the rate of decay in many cases… or is that one in the mind, too?
Energy is a feature of the territory because it’s a function of position and momenta and other territory-things.
“Capacity to transfer heat” can mean a few things, and I’m not sure which you want. There’s already heat capacity, which is how much actual energy is stored per degree of temperature. To find the total internal heat energy you just have to integrate this up to the current temperature. The usual example here is an iceberg which stores much more heat energy than a cup of coffee, and yet heat flows from the coffee to the iceberg. If you mean something more like “quantity that determines which direction heat will flow between two systems,” then that’s just the definition I presented :p
I actually have trouble defending “probability is in the mind” in some physics contexts without invoking many-worlds. If it turns out that many-worlds is wrong and copenhagen, say, is right, then it will be useful to believe that for physical processes, probability is in the territory. I think. Not too sure about this.
Yeah, that’s a better definition :)
Feel free to elaborate. I’d think that probability is either in the map or in the territory, regardless of the context or your QM ontology, not sometimes here and sometimes there. And if it is in the territory, then so is entropy and temperature, right?
Say we have some electron in equal superposition of spin up and down, and we measure it.
In Copenhagen, the universe decides that it’s up or down right then and there, with 50% probability. This isn’t in the mind, since it’s not a product of our ignorance. It can’t be, because of Bell stuff.
In many-worlds, the universe does a deterministic thing and one branch measures spin up, one measures spin down. The probability is in my mind, because it’s a product of my ignorance—I don’t know what branch I’m in.
Hmm, so, assuming there is no experimental distinction between the two interpretations, there is no way to tell the difference between map and territory, not even in principle? That’s disconcerting. I guess I see what you mean by ” trouble defending “probability is in the mind”″.
If we inject some air into a box then close our eyes for a few seconds and shove in a partition, there is a finite chance of finding the nitrogen on one side and the oxygen on the other. Entropy can decrease, and that’s allowed by the laws of physics. The internal energy had better not change, though. That’s disallowed.
If energy changes, our underlying physical laws need to be reexamined. In the official dogma, these are firmly in the territory. If entropy goes down, our map was likely wrong.
That doesn’t follow.
Even if Copenhagen is right, I as a rational agent should still ought to use mind-probabilities. It may be the case that the quantum world is truly probabilistic-in-the-territory, but that doesn’t affect the fact that I don’t know the state of any physical system precisely.
Can’t there be forms of probability in the territoryand the map?
You’re most of the way towards why you shouldn’t believe the Jaynes -Yudkowaky argument.
If you really can infer the absence of probability in the territory by reflecting on human reasoning alone, then the truth ofCLI versus MWI shouldn’t matter. If matters, as you seem to think, then armchair reasoning can’t do what Jaynes amd Yudkowsky think it can (in this case)
Its a reference to a bad,but locally popular argument from Jaynes. It holds, that since since, some forms of probability are subjective, they all are, and...ta-daaa ….the territory is therefore deterministic.
Name a probability that is not subjective. (And before you bring up quantum-mechanical collapse, I’d just like to say one thing: MWI. And before you complain about unfalsifiability, let me link you here.)
I don’t need definite proof of in-the-territory probability to support my actual point, which is that you can’t determine the existence or non existence of features of the territory by armchair reflection.
Of course you can’t determine whether something exists or not. There might yet be other probabilities out there that actually are objective. The fact that we have not discovered any such thing, however, is telling. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Therefore, it is likely—not certain, but likely—that no such probabilities exist. If your claim is that we cannot be certain of this, then of course you are correct. Such a claim, however, is trivial.