Math is math, and at the end of the day the SB problem is just a math problem.
No, it’s also an identity/assumption problem. Probability is subjective—it’s an agent’s estimate of future experience. In the sleeping beauty case, there is an undefined and out-of-domain intuition about “will it be one or two individuals having this future experience?” We just don’t have any identity quantification experience in the case of split/merge from this memory-wipe setup.
the unstated disagreement is whether it’s one or two experiences that resolve the probability. This ambiguity is clear by the fact that simplifications into clearly-distinct people don’t trigger the same confusions. The memory-wipe is the defining element of this problem.
And to tie this to the universe question—how will the probability be resolved? What future experience are you predicting with either interpretation?
That comment about math was just intended as a rhetorical flourish. My apologies if it was over stated. In context, though, hopefully it was clear that I meant once you’ve established what question you’re actually asking, the math is straightforward.
Would you be willing to expand a little on your last sentence and explain a bit more about what you’re asking? I’m not sure I followed.
I think it goes to our main point of agreement: there is ambiguity in what question is being asked. For sleeping beauty, the ambiguity is “probability of WHAT future experience for WHOM” is she calculating a probability for. I was curious if you can answer that for your universe question: whose future experience will be used to resolve the truth of the matter for what probability was appropriate to use for the prediction?
I think we may be approaching these questions too differently, and I’m having trouble appreciating your question. I want to make sure I actually answer it.
The way I’m modelling the situation is this, the implication being that this is the closest to the way we would want to understand our universe:
1. A universe is created
2. Observers are “placed” in this universe as a result of the universe’s inherent processes
3. You are “assigned” to one of these observers at random
In this framework, you don’t necessarily get to verify anything. It’s merely the case that if you were modelling the universe that way, then you would find that the probability of being in any given universe was determined only by step 1, unaffected by step 3.
I don’t think I agree with #3 (and I’d frame #2 as “localities of space-time gain the ability to to sense and model things”, but I’m not sure if that’s important to our miscommunication). I think each of the observers happens to exist, and observes what it can independently of the others. Each of them experiences “you-ness”, and none are privileged over the others, as far as any 3rd observer can tell.
So I think I’d say
Universe exists
Some parts of the universe have the ability to observe, model, and experience their corner of space-time.
It turns out you are one of those.
I don’t think active verbs are justified here—not necessarily “created”, “placed”, or “assigned”.
I don’t know for sure whether there is a god’s eye view or “outside” observation point, but I suspect not, or at least I suspect that I can never get access to it or any effects of it, and can’t think of what evidence I could find one way or the other.
No, it’s also an identity/assumption problem. Probability is subjective—it’s an agent’s estimate of future experience. In the sleeping beauty case, there is an undefined and out-of-domain intuition about “will it be one or two individuals having this future experience?” We just don’t have any identity quantification experience in the case of split/merge from this memory-wipe setup.
the unstated disagreement is whether it’s one or two experiences that resolve the probability. This ambiguity is clear by the fact that simplifications into clearly-distinct people don’t trigger the same confusions. The memory-wipe is the defining element of this problem.
And to tie this to the universe question—how will the probability be resolved? What future experience are you predicting with either interpretation?
That comment about math was just intended as a rhetorical flourish. My apologies if it was over stated. In context, though, hopefully it was clear that I meant once you’ve established what question you’re actually asking, the math is straightforward.
Would you be willing to expand a little on your last sentence and explain a bit more about what you’re asking? I’m not sure I followed.
I think it goes to our main point of agreement: there is ambiguity in what question is being asked. For sleeping beauty, the ambiguity is “probability of WHAT future experience for WHOM” is she calculating a probability for. I was curious if you can answer that for your universe question: whose future experience will be used to resolve the truth of the matter for what probability was appropriate to use for the prediction?
I think we may be approaching these questions too differently, and I’m having trouble appreciating your question. I want to make sure I actually answer it.
The way I’m modelling the situation is this, the implication being that this is the closest to the way we would want to understand our universe:
1. A universe is created
2. Observers are “placed” in this universe as a result of the universe’s inherent processes
3. You are “assigned” to one of these observers at random
In this framework, you don’t necessarily get to verify anything. It’s merely the case that if you were modelling the universe that way, then you would find that the probability of being in any given universe was determined only by step 1, unaffected by step 3.
I don’t think I agree with #3 (and I’d frame #2 as “localities of space-time gain the ability to to sense and model things”, but I’m not sure if that’s important to our miscommunication). I think each of the observers happens to exist, and observes what it can independently of the others. Each of them experiences “you-ness”, and none are privileged over the others, as far as any 3rd observer can tell.
So I think I’d say
Universe exists
Some parts of the universe have the ability to observe, model, and experience their corner of space-time.
It turns out you are one of those.
I don’t think active verbs are justified here—not necessarily “created”, “placed”, or “assigned”.
I don’t know for sure whether there is a god’s eye view or “outside” observation point, but I suspect not, or at least I suspect that I can never get access to it or any effects of it, and can’t think of what evidence I could find one way or the other.