= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Fundamentally Flawed, or Fast and Frugal? - 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 (74)
In chess or go idealized Bayesians just make the right move because they are logically omniscient.
If you argue that Bayesianism is only a good way to reason when you are omniscient and a bad idea for people who aren't omniscient I can agree with your argument.
If you are however omniscient you don't need much decision theory anyway.
There's a bit of a difference between logical omniscience and vanilla omniscience: with logical omniscience, you can perfectly work out all the implications of all of the evidence you find, and with the other sort, you get to look a printout of the universe's state.
But you don't have any of those in the real world and therefore they shouldn't factor into a discussion about effective decision making strategies.
You'll never find perfect equality in the real world, so let's abandon math.
You will never find evidence for the existence of God, so let's abandon religion...
Yes! Already did!
Where's the difference between believing in nonexistent logical omniscience and believing in nonexistent Gods?