The point is that a map has to represent the territory.
“And sure, every map is, in a sense, a map of the world”, as you out it.,
So if a the territory is branching , the map.should, too. (A map may include aspects of human knowledge as well).
I’m proposing a better map, capable to talk about knowledge states and uncertainty, in any circumstances
That’s a disadvantage, because the same map can’t represent any territory.
Threre may be an ontologically neutral way of doing probability calculations, but it’s not a map, for that reason....more of a tool.
If you think that the framework of probability experiment that I’m outlining in the post fails to account for something that the frameworks of possible worlds manage to account for
The problem is the implied ontology. You haven’t actually proven that probability is only in the mind and you can’t prove it using methodology, because its a statement about the territory , not just about probability calculations.
Possible world is a term from a map. There may be a referent for it in a territory
If there is a referent for it in the territory, it is entirely reasonable to say “possible worlds exist”.
But it doesn’t mean that we have to use this particular term to talk about this referent. We may have a better term, instead.
Is it really a win to admit the substance of existing possible worlds, but under a different name?
So if a the territory is branching , the map.should, too.
Of course not. The territory can be made of rocks and dirt, but it doesn’t mean that the map also has to be.
That’s a disadvantage, because the same map can’t represent any territory.
I’m not saying that it represents every territory. I’m saying that it represents a more general class of territories without loosing any advantages of the framework of possible worlds.
In the post I’ve even specifically outlined what are the territories that my framework can represent:
“So the territory that probability is in the map of is...”
All the processes in the real world, such that my knowledge state about them works like a weighted sample of n elements.
( there may be an ontological neutral way of doing probability calculations, but it’s not a map, for that reason....more of a tool)
Now it seems that you are finally starting to get it. It is a map, of course, but that’s really beside the point. If you want to put it in a separate category of “tools” (as if a map is not a tool?) then whatever suits your needs. Yes, what I’m doing is providing an ontologically neutral framework for probability theory that works better than a framework of possible worlds.
The problem is the implied ontology.
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 there is a referent for it in the territory, it is entirely reasonable to say “possible worlds exist”.
I’m not saying that it’s unreasonable to say, conditionally on using this term. I’m saying that usage of the term, to begin with, is a bad idea as it keeps leading people doing probability theory astray.
Is it really a win to admit the substance of existing possible worlds, but under a different name?
When your goal is to separate the substance from the harmful rubbish, it absolutely is a win.
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”.
The point is that a map has to represent the territory.
“And sure, every map is, in a sense, a map of the world”, as you out it.,
So if a the territory is branching , the map.should, too. (A map may include aspects of human knowledge as well).
That’s a disadvantage, because the same map can’t represent any territory.
Threre may be an ontologically neutral way of doing probability calculations, but it’s not a map, for that reason....more of a tool.
The problem is the implied ontology. You haven’t actually proven that probability is only in the mind and you can’t prove it using methodology, because its a statement about the territory , not just about probability calculations.
If there is a referent for it in the territory, it is entirely reasonable to say “possible worlds exist”.
Is it really a win to admit the substance of existing possible worlds, but under a different name?
Of course not. The territory can be made of rocks and dirt, but it doesn’t mean that the map also has to be.
I’m not saying that it represents every territory. I’m saying that it represents a more general class of territories without loosing any advantages of the framework of possible worlds.
In the post I’ve even specifically outlined what are the territories that my framework can represent:
Now it seems that you are finally starting to get it. It is a map, of course, but that’s really beside the point. If you want to put it in a separate category of “tools” (as if a map is not a tool?) then whatever suits your needs. Yes, what I’m doing is providing an ontologically neutral framework for probability theory that works better than a framework of possible worlds.
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.
I’m not saying that it’s unreasonable to say, conditionally on using this term. I’m saying that usage of the term, to begin with, is a bad idea as it keeps leading people doing probability theory astray.
When your goal is to separate the substance from the harmful rubbish, it absolutely is a win.
If that’s what you actually think, the first line should read something like “under circumstances where probability is in the mind”.