The main problem I have always had with this is that the reference set is “actual world history” when in fact that is the exact thing that observers are trying to decipher.
We all realize that there is in fact an “actual world history” however if it was known then this wouldn’t be an issue. Using it as a reference set then, seems spurious in all practicality.
The most obvious way to achieve it is for the two agents to simply tell each other I(w) and J(w), after which they share a new, common information partition.
I think that summation is a good way to interpret the problem I addressed in as practical a manner as is currently available; I would note however that most people arbitrarily weight observational inference, so there is a skewing of the data.
The sad part about the whole thing is that both or all observers exchanging information may be the same deviation away from w such that their combined probabilities of l(w)are further away from w than either individually.
Huh? The reference set Ω is the set of possible world histories, out of which one element is the actual world history. I don’t see what’s wrong with this.
The main problem I have always had with this is that the reference set is “actual world history” when in fact that is the exact thing that observers are trying to decipher.
We all realize that there is in fact an “actual world history” however if it was known then this wouldn’t be an issue. Using it as a reference set then, seems spurious in all practicality.
I think that summation is a good way to interpret the problem I addressed in as practical a manner as is currently available; I would note however that most people arbitrarily weight observational inference, so there is a skewing of the data.
The sad part about the whole thing is that both or all observers exchanging information may be the same deviation away from w such that their combined probabilities of l(w)are further away from w than either individually.
Huh? The reference set Ω is the set of possible world histories, out of which one element is the actual world history. I don’t see what’s wrong with this.
I suppose my post was poorly worded. Yes, in this case omega is the reference set for possible world histories.
What I was referring to was the baseline of w as an accurate measure. It is a normalizing reference, though not a set.