= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
cousin_it comments on A note on the description complexity of physical theories - 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 (177)
Yeah, I guess the preceding post needs some obvious amendments in light of this post (though the general point still stands). I hope people are smart enough to see them anyway.
I just don't understand what sense it makes for a perfect Bayesian to distinguish between equivalent theories. Is it still honestly about "degrees of belief", or is it now about those other informal properties that you list?
No sense. It's a correct thing to do if depth of understanding of these theories is valuable and one is not logically omnipotent, but using complexity-leading-to-improbability to justify this principle would be cargo cult Bayesianism.
The prior probability of a simple explanation is inherently greater than the prior probability of a complex explanation.
If all evidence/observation confirm both explanations equally, then the simple explanation still is on the lead: because it started out with a higher prior probability.