[alisonkisk]

How does the ball situation help? It has the same problems of physical impossibility of measuring however the balls were ordered. (Modelling someone's brain?) I guess the argument works on someone with an unscientific model of the human brain, but that's one step forward and two steps back.

[enriquto]

Somebody just put the balls there carefully, and did not tell you in what order, just how many of each color.

[Frost1x]

That still boils down to a lack of prior information which I don't think removes the argument for "I don't have enough information."

Probably have to use actual quantum phenomena that behave probabilistically by definition if you want a currently irrefutable physical example.

I'm personally not convinced even this is fundamentally probabilistic and we currently have to rely on probability theory as a crutch for complex behaviors we just quite don't understand yet or don't have the time and resources to compute.

[enriquto]

> "I don't have enough information."

My point exactly. Probability theory is a precise mathematical formalization of the concept of "not enough information".

[posterboy]

You don't need quantum physics to formulate a philosophical standpoint that happens to agree with the Kopenhagen Interpretation.

I'm not sure if it helps, but I suppose a compromise here would be the assumption that you don't really know the starting configuration of yourself, why you draw probabilistic inferences naturally, that the sun will go up tomorrow like every day.

If that has a biologic explanation, then the top comment was not just to the illusive argument of platonic ideals.