Not that I can think of, besides memory/speed constaints, and how much updating you can have done with the evidence you've recieved.
and how much updating you can have done with the evidence you've recieved.
Why can't it happen that you have so little and/or such weak evidence, that the amount of precision you should have is none at all?
http://vimeo.com/22099396
What do people think of this, from a Bayesian perspective?
It is a talk given to the Oxford Transhumanists. Their previous speaker was Eliezer Yudkowsky. Audio version and past talks here: http://groupspaces.com/oxfordtranshumanists/pages/past-talks