@Meaningness Aaronson (natch) has a good overview of what kind of generalization of probability quantum mechanics is: http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html …
-
-
Replying to @joXn
@Meaningness Seems clear though that you can’t leverage this relationship to extend probability theory outside of propositional calculus.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn
@Meaningness Turns out there’s a whole theory of quantum logics and … well, they seem highly abstract. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantlog/ …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness It’s the most successful physical theory yet, it can express relationships of necessity (of a sort) between different systems…>1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn
@Meaningness And yet those relationships (entanglement) are highly technical, physically fragile, and nothing like Bayesian “reasoning”…>1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn
@Meaningness But that aside, it weakens the piece to say nobody has found any useful extensions/generalizations to probability theory. …>2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@joXn I said that probability theory is not an extension of logic—not that probability theory has no extensions!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@joXn (I hope—if this was unclear, it needs fixing!)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@joXn Oh, wait, is this about the bit at the end of the Cox’s theorem discussion, about how none of the alternatives are useful?
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.