Mass_Driver comments on The Irrationality Game - Less Wrong

38 Post author: Will_Newsome 03 October 2010 02:43AM

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

Comments (910)

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

Comment author: Mass_Driver 03 October 2010 05:14:07AM 4 points [-]

Propositions about the ultimate nature of reality should never be assigned probability greater than 90% by organic humans, because we don't have any meaningful capabilities for experimentation or testing.

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 03 October 2010 07:38:25AM 2 points [-]

Yep. Over-reliance on anthropic arguments IMO.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 03 October 2010 08:15:21AM *  2 points [-]

Huh, querying my reasons for thinking 99.5% is reasonable, few are related to anthropics. Most of it is antiprediction about the various implications of a big universe, as well as the antiprediction that we live in such a big universe.

(ETA: edited out 'if any', I do indeed have a few arguments from anthropics, but not in the sense of typical anthropic reasoning, and none that can be easily shared or explained. I know that sounds bad. Oh well.)

Comment author: Will_Newsome 03 October 2010 05:16:01AM 2 points [-]

Pah! Real Bayesians don't need experiment or testing; Bayes transcends the epistemological realm of mere Science. We have way more than enough data to make very strong guesses.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 October 2010 05:26:03AM 1 point [-]

This raises an interesting point: what do you think about the Presumptuous Philosopher thought experiment?