[ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective".

[Lee Corbin]

Stathis writes

> 2008/7/18 Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:
> 
>> You can imagine that,

Well, do recall that I was only imagining an *alien* who
claimed to be comfortable with the whole thing. (This
brings up a tangential idea I like to explore: what is the
most *barely* believable or *barely* unbelievable
thing that someone from an extremely advanced
civilization could say to one. For many years, my
candidate for the most *barely* unbelievable thing
has been that P does not equal NP (in computability)
theory.  I don't remember if I had any suggestion for
the most barely *believable* item, but the nonchalance
of an alien with regard to MWI very easily explaining 
EPR does not even come close to being barely
believable.

>> Lee, but can you imagine how infuriating I find it?

No, I can't. I guess I'm just not bothered by some things.
I just got off the phone with a friend who keeps demanding
WHY?  WHY?  WHY?   in response to an article in
Scientific American that says that if we just add (1)
causality and (2) a cosmological constant, then we get
out a nice 4D spacetime.  As for me, I don't need to 
know WHY for certain things. That's just how we find
the universe. Call me complacent.

>> Suppose the alien asked you, "How come the righthand jutty-out bit of South
>> America fits so neatly into the concave bite out of Africa, thousands of
>> miles away?" and you airily explained, "Well, of course it must. Continents
>> are like that." Never mind ocean floor spreading and plate tectonics; it's
>> just obvious that it has to be that way. I don't think so.

I hope that that would not have been my response to Wegener. Maybe I
would have said "Well, there are a lot of shapes that might strike one
as coincidental."  But when you add in all the geological coincidences,
then surely even I would have demanded an explanation (i.e., been
totally unsatisfied with saying "it just happened that way").

> What about the explanation for why we generally find ourselves in a
> world consistent with the history we remember? I'm claiming that this
> is no easier to explain than the results of EPR experiments under MWI.

Probably I'm begging the question, but first, let's suppose that 
from time to time we or our ancestors found ourselves in a
world that was *not* reconcilable with our memories. (And
I mean beyond the usual "where the hell did I put the scissors,
they were in my hands just a minute ago". I mean truly
*unreconcilable*.)  That would not be good for survival.

So let's start with this:  the correct physical explanation---whatever
it is---yields up as a close approximation a consistent 4D flat
spacetime, i.e., preceding events A are consistent with consequent
effects B (or, IOW, causes are harmonious with effects). Then it
would be quite natural to suppose that evolutionarily derived beings
like ourselves would make records (i.e. memories) that were
consistent with the causes that affect us later (i.e. our sensations).
How badly have I begged the question?  (And--off the subject--if
this is an incorrect use of the ancient phrase "to beg the question",
PLEASE PLEASE let me know, preferably off-list.)

Lee