Peter_de_Blanc comments on A note on the description complexity of physical theories - Less Wrong

19 Post author: cousin_it 09 November 2010 04:25PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (177)

Comments (177)

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

Comment author: Peter_de_Blanc 11 November 2010 03:14:10AM 1 point [-]

The tradition in Bayesianism and standard rationality (and logical positivism, for that matter) that the truth of a statement is to be found through its observable consequences.

Since when is that the Bayesian tradition? Citation needed.

Comment author: Perplexed 11 November 2010 03:30:02AM 0 points [-]

the truth of a statement is to be found through its observable consequences.

Since when?

Well, I guess I am taking "observable consequences" to be something closely related to P(E|H)/P(E). And I am taking "the truth of a statement" to have something to do with P(H|E) adjusted for any bias that might have been present in the prior P(H).

I'm afraid this explanation is all the citation I can offer. I would be happy to hear your opinion along the lines of "That ain't 'truth'. 'Truth' is <something else> to a Bayesian"

Comment deleted 11 November 2010 03:36:15AM *  [-]
Comment author: Jack 11 November 2010 03:49:31AM *  1 point [-]

Observable consequences are part of what controls the plausibility of a statement, but not its truth. An unobservable truth can still be a truth.

...

There is a thing called reality, which causes our experiences and a lot of other things, characterized by its ability to not always do what we want or expect.

If we're going to distinguish 'truth' from our 'observations' then we need to be able to define 'reality' as something other than 'experience generator' (or else decouple truth and reality).

Comment author: Perplexed 11 November 2010 04:41:47AM 0 points [-]

Personally, I suspect that we really need to think of reality as something other than an experience generator. What we can extract out of reality is only half of the story. The other half is the stuff we put in so as to create reality.

This is not a fully worked out philosophical position, but I do have some slogans:

  • You can't do QM with only kets and no bras.
  • You can't do Gentzen natural deduction with rules of elimination, but no rules of introduction.
  • You can't write a program with GOTOs, but no COMEFROMs.

(That last slogan probably needs some work. Maybe I'll try something involving causes and effects.)

Comment author: Jack 11 November 2010 03:29:11AM 0 points [-]

How do you adjudicate a wager without observable consequences?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit