Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

private_messaging comments on What is Bayesianism? - Less Wrong

81 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 26 February 2010 07:43AM

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

Comments (211)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: private_messaging 09 June 2012 09:19:02AM *  0 points [-]

Core tenet 3: We can use the concept of probability to measure our subjective belief in something. Furthermore, we can apply the mathematical laws regarding probability to choosing between different beliefs. If we want our beliefs to be correct, we must do so.

Frequently misunderstood. E.g. you have propositions A and B , you mistakenly consider that probably either one of them will happen, and you may give me money if you judge P(A)/P(B) > some threshold.

If both A and B happen to be unlikely, I can use that to make arguments which only prompt you to update (lower probability of) B .

Likewise, if you have some A probability of which is increased by some arguments and decreased by the other, I can give you only the arguments in favour of A. As a good Bayesian you are going to keep updating the belief, to my advantage.

Everything breaks down on incomplete inference graphs that very frequently contain mistakes (invalid relations, invalid nodes, etc). No matter how much you internalize the tenets, unless you internalize some sort of quantum hyper-computing implant into your head, your inference graphs will be incomplete to an unknown extent, and only partially propagated. If the propagations are ever to be prompted by reading that you should propagate something, you'll be significantly under remote control.