Psy-Kosh comments on Open Thread: December 2009 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: CannibalSmith 01 December 2009 04:25PM

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

Comments (263)

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

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 03 December 2009 08:44:10PM 1 point [-]

Is there a proof anywhere that occam's razor is correct? More specifically, that occam priors are the correct priors. Going from the conjunction rule to P(A) >= P(B & C) when A and B&C are equally favored by the evidence seems simple enough (and A, B, and C are atomic propositions), but I don't (immediately) see how to get from here to an actual number that you can plug into Baye's rule. Is this just something that is buried in textbook on information theory?

On that note, assuming someone had a strong background in statistics (phd level) and little to no background in computer science outside of a stat computing course or two, how much computer science/other fields would they have to learn to be able to learn information theory?

Thanks to anyone who bites

Comment author: ciphergoth 08 January 2010 11:00:32AM 0 points [-]

Not only is there no proof, there isn't even any evidence for it. Any effort to collect evidence for it leaves you assuming what you're trying to prove. This is the "problem of induction" and there is no solution; however, since you are built to be incapable of not applying induction and you couldn't possibly make any decisions without it.