I’m saying that usage of the term, to begin with, is a bad idea as it keeps leading people doing probability theory astray.
Do you have a concrete example of that?
The problem is that according to the framework of “possible worlds” we technically need to be able to do a thing that we can’t do
No,.we only need to be able to imagine the consequences of something that didnt happen. Which we can do using , physical laws, because they tell you the consequences of a counterfactual input just as well as a real.one … they have no way of telling the difference.
Once again, no ontology is actually implied. It’s absolutely trivial to describe behavior of indetermenistic processes in terms of probability experiment. I’m concentrating on deterministic cases simply because they are trickier
If that’s what you actually think, the first line should read something like “under circumstances where probability is in the mind”.
Do you have a concrete example of that?
No,.we only need to be able to imagine the consequences of something that didnt happen. Which we can do using , physical laws, because they tell you the consequences of a counterfactual input just as well as a real.one … they have no way of telling the difference.
If that’s what you actually think, the first line should read something like “under circumstances where probability is in the mind”.