I would agree the future is objectively undetermined, but many interpretations do not agree. The wavefunction delelops deterministicly and the future is fully determined by the present state of things in many interpretations. The one statement of yours I disagreed with was when you described one...
It make sense that your comments come from a Copenhagen interpretation. Initially it was sort of founded on the idea that anything we can't observe does not count. and there is only subjective uncertainty. I think that was an early wrong turn. An example I'd use is a black box that we can not...
Hi Thank you for your reply I mean “information exists” in a different sense. When I’m asking about "objective probability" I'm asking "does the universe 'know' the result?” That is - even if you had all information in existence and infinite computing time can ,in this case, the next exact...
I think I have clear in my head what the paper is saying now. I'm not sure you and I are communicating 100% clearly, however. Which is OK. I'm coming from a statistical (and physics) background with a dash of philosophy. And my definitions of objective probability and subjective probability are...
I'm using "objective probability" to mean that the information needed to resolve the uncertainty does not exist and "subjective probability" to mean that the information to resolve the uncertainty exists, but we don't have the information. He does explicitly say that it goes through a single...
I tried to read most of the first paper. I will take his word that the new math duplicates the old math, which we still then need to interpret. In that part I observed something of a contradiction or slight of hand or unclarity, however you'd like to describe it. By saying there is fundamental...