I continue to be confused about whether/when you're allowed to draw causal arrows from mathematical to physical facts.
@MemberOfSpecies causality is normally taken as an objective fact, not an epistemic state.
-
-
@Meaningness And it seems like we should be able to talk about causes even in a deterministic universe that fundamentally has no probability -
@MemberOfSpecies Yes; the Kripke framework is non-probabilistic, in fact. it’s just about what “could have been different.” But math couldnt - 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@Meaningness And this is true even if I subjectively think the symmetrical coin has a 70% probability of heads. -
@MemberOfSpecies@Meaningness I don't see this. Why the obj 50% in a det'd universe? - 14 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@Meaningness There's a sense in which a symmetrical coin objectively has a 50% probability of heads even in a deterministic universe.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@Meaningness So maybe there's an analogue of this in math, where the facts are one definite way, but a subjectively uncertain agent stillThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@Meaningness has reason to point at some structural features and say that they constitute objective probabilities.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@Meaningness Pearl's program defines causes in terms of patterns of conditional probability, right?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.