= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
cousin_it comments on Popperian Decision making - 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 (100)
I didn't say it was false, just irrelevant to the current discussion of what we want from a theory of knowledge.
You could use math instead of code. To take a Bayesian example, the Solomonoff prior is uncomputable, but well-defined mathematically and you can write computable approximations to it, so it counts as progress in my book. To take a non-Bayesian example, fuzzy logic is formalized enough to be useful in applications.
Anyway, I think I understand where you're coming from, and maybe it's unfair to demand new LW-style insights from you. But hopefully you also understand why we like Bayesianism, and that we don't even think of it at the level you're discussing.
I understand some. But I think you're mistaken and I don't see a lot to like when judged by the standards of good philosophy. Philosophy is important. Your projects, like inventing an AI, will run into obstacles you did not foresee if your philosophy is mistaken.
Of course I have the same criticism about people in all sorts of other fields. Architects or physicists or economists who don't know philosophy run into problems too. But claiming to have an epistemology, and claiming to replace Popper, those are things most fields don't do. So I try to ask about it. Shrug.
I think I figured out the main idea of Bayesian epistemology. It is: Bayes' theorem is the source of justification (this is intended as the solution to the problem of justification, which is a bad problem).
But when you start doing math, it's ignored, and you get stuff right (at least given the premises, which are often not realistic, following the proud tradition of game theory and economics). So I should clarify: that's the main philosophical claim. It's not very interesting. Oh well.
No. See here, where Eliezer specifically says that this is not the case. ("But first, let it be clearly admitted that the rules of Bayesian updating, do not of themselves solve the problem of induction.")
I had already seen that.
Note that I said justification not induction.
I don't want to argue about this. If you like the idea, enjoy it. If you don't, just forget about it and reply to something else I said.