Open Thread June 2010, Part 4

Will_Newsome

This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.

This thread brought to you by quantum immortality.

This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.

This thread brought to you by quantum immortality.

Wei Dai thought up a counterexample to that :-)

It seems to me that Wei Dai's argument is flawed (and I may be overly arrogant in saying this; I haven't even had breakfast this morning.)

He says that the probability of knowing an uncomputable problem would be evaluated at 0 originally; I don't fundamentally see why "measure zero hypothesis" is equivalent to "impossible;" for example the hypothesis of "they're making it up as they go along" having probability 2^(-S) based on the size of the set shrinks at a certain rate as evidence arrives; that means that given any finite a... (read more)

1steven046116y

Gelman/Shalizi don't seem to be arguing from the possibility that physics is noncomputable; they seem to think their argument (against Bayes as induction) works even under ordinary circumstances.