Warrigal comments on Open Thread: October 2009 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: gwern 01 October 2009 12:49PM

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

Comments (425)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 28 October 2009 10:54:56AM 0 points [-]

So, there's this set, called W. The non-emptiness of W would imply that many significant and falsifiable conjectures, which we have not yet falsified, are false. What's the probability that W is empty?

(Yep, it's a bead jar guess. Show me your priors. I will not offer clarification unless I find that there's something I meant to be clearer about but wasn't.)

Comment author: Alicorn 28 October 2009 01:20:17PM 2 points [-]

How many is "many"?

Comment author: cousin_it 28 October 2009 11:50:09AM 0 points [-]

I say 0.9.