Vladimir_Nesov comments on You can't believe in Bayes - Less Wrong

4 Post author: PhilGoetz 09 June 2009 06:03PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (58)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 10 June 2009 07:03:48AM 1 point [-]

Well, PhilGoetz is claiming (if I am finally understanding him) that casting things in the light of believe/disbelieve loses information. To me--and to you also, it would seem--it gains information.

I agree. Compare this with computation of a factorial function. You start with knowing that the function is f(n)=if(n>1) n*f(n-1) else 1. Then you find out that f(1)=1, then that f(2)=2, etc. With each step, you are not taking new data out of environment, you are working from what you already have, simply juggling the numbers, but you gain new information.

For more on this view, see S. Abramsky (2008). `Information, processes and games' (PDF). In P. Adriaans & J. Benthem (eds.), Handbook of the philosophy of information. Elsevier Science Publishers.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 10 June 2009 02:25:01PM 0 points [-]

I agree. Compare this with computation of a factorial function. You start with knowing that the function is f(n)=if(n>1) n*f(n-1) else 1. Then you find out that f(1)=1, then that f(2)=2, etc. With each step, you are not taking new data out of environment, you are working from what you already have, simply juggling the numbers, but you gain new information.

That's an invalid comparison. That's a mathematical operation that doesn't involve information loss, and hence has nothing to do with this discussion.