Will_Newsome 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: Will_Newsome 04 October 2010 10:06:06PM 1 point [-]

(FWIW I endorse this line of reasoning, and still think 99.5% is reasonable. Bwa ha ha.)

(That is, I also think it makes sense to attach the bulk of the measure to basement reality, but sense happens to be wrong here, and insanity happens to be right. The universe is weird. I continue to frustratingly refuse to provide arguments for this, though.)

(Also, though I and I think most others agree that measure should be assigned via some kind of complexity prior (universal or speed priors are commonly suggested), others like Tegmark are drawn towards a uniform prior. I forget why.)

Comment author: Perplexed 04 October 2010 11:21:31PM 1 point [-]

... others like Tegmark are drawn towards a uniform prior.

I wouldn't have thought that a uniform prior would even make sense unless the underlying space has a metric (a bounded metric, in fact). Certainly, a Haar measure on a recursively nested space (simulations within simulations) would have to assign the bulk of its measure to the basement. Well, live and learn.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 04 October 2010 11:55:08PM 0 points [-]

I wouldn't have thought that a uniform prior would even make sense unless the underlying space has a metric (a bounded metric, in fact).

Yeah, I also don't understand Tegmark's reasoning (which might have changed anyway).