= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
robzahra comments on Atheism = Untheism + Antitheism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (179)
I'm confused by your comment, but I'll try to answer anyway.
As an agent in environment, you can consider the environment in behavioral semantics: environment is an equivalence class of all the things that behave the same as what you see. Instead of minimal model, this gives a maximal model. Everything about territory remains black box, except the structure imposed by the way you see the territory, by the way you observe things, perform actions, and value strategies. This dissolves the question about what the territory "really is".
Two models can behave the same as what you've seen so far, but diverge in future predictions. Which model should you give greater weight to? That's the question I'm asking.
The current best answer we know seems to be to write each consistent hypothesis in a formal language, and weight longer explanations inverse exponentially, renormalizing such that your total probability sums to 1. Look up aixi, universal prior