= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
GuySrinivasan comments on Bayesian Flame - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (155)
I believe the answer to this question is currently "we don't know". But notice that "the electron" doesn't exist, it's a pattern ("just" a pattern? :)) in the wavefunction. A pattern which happens to occur in lots of places, so we call it an electron.
My intuition, IANAP, is that if anything it is more natural to say the 50% belongs somehow to which branch you find yourself in, not the pattern in the wavefunction we call an electron.
Ok, but I don't think that matters for the question of frequentist versus Bayesian. You're still saying that the 50% is a property of something other than your own uncertainty.
Moving the problem to lexical uncertainty seems to me to rely on moving the question in time; you can only do this after you've done the experiment but before you've looked at the measurement. This feels to me like asking a different question.