Comments on: Anyone for frequentist fudge? http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2006/06/14/anyone-for-frequentist-fudge/ Foundations of Quantum Theory Sun, 27 Sep 2009 01:05:18 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Matthew Leifer http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2006/06/14/anyone-for-frequentist-fudge/#comment-76 Matthew Leifer Sat, 01 Jul 2006 18:32:30 +0000 https://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2006/06/14/anyone-for-frequentist-fudge/#comment-76 I agree that they would reject the Born rule. I am not saying that simply adopting Bayesianism is enough to solve the problem. However, the idea that probabilities have to be related to world counts is at least not a foregone conclusion for a Bayesian. Therefore, it may well be possible to justify the Born rule within this approach without modifying QM in any way. This is what Deutsch and Wallace were trying to do, although I do not dispute that the argument is not 100% compelling. Personally, I have other reasons for rejecting many-worlds, so it doesn't bother me too much if the probability issue remains controversial. On the other hand, I do think it is helpful to compare frequency-based proposals with the usual frquentist justification of classical probability and ask whether we would accept similar arguments there, or whether it would seem ad hoc. I agree that they would reject the Born rule. I am not saying that simply adopting Bayesianism is enough to solve the problem. However, the idea that probabilities have to be related to world counts is at least not a foregone conclusion for a Bayesian. Therefore, it may well be possible to justify the Born rule within this approach without modifying QM in any way. This is what Deutsch and Wallace were trying to do, although I do not dispute that the argument is not 100% compelling.

Personally, I have other reasons for rejecting many-worlds, so it doesn’t bother me too much if the probability issue remains controversial. On the other hand, I do think it is helpful to compare frequency-based proposals with the usual frquentist justification of classical probability and ask whether we would accept similar arguments there, or whether it would seem ad hoc.

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2006/06/14/anyone-for-frequentist-fudge/#comment-74 Robin Hanson Sat, 01 Jul 2006 17:40:17 +0000 https://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2006/06/14/anyone-for-frequentist-fudge/#comment-74 Taking a Bayesian perspective does not avoid the problem that in a finite many worlds view the vast majority of worlds have frequencies very different from the Born rule. That should lead Bayesians in those worlds to reject the Born rule. Taking a Bayesian perspective does not avoid the problem that in a finite many worlds view the vast majority of worlds have frequencies very different from the Born rule. That should lead Bayesians in those worlds to reject the Born rule.

]]> By: Steve Esser http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2006/06/14/anyone-for-frequentist-fudge/#comment-51 Steve Esser Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:25:53 +0000 https://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2006/06/14/anyone-for-frequentist-fudge/#comment-51 Interesting post (and blog). I'm grateful for the link to the Appleby paper, which I thought was very persuasive, Best regards, - Steve Esser Interesting post (and blog). I’m grateful for the link to the Appleby paper, which I thought was very persuasive,
Best regards, – Steve Esser

]]>