janos comments on Take heed, for it is a trap - Less Wrong

47 Post author: Zed 14 August 2011 10:23AM

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

Comments (187)

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

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 14 August 2011 11:48:50AM *  2 points [-]

Most of the statements you make are false in their connotations, but there's one statement you make (and attribute to "Bayesian Bob") that seems false no matter what way you look at it, and it's this one: "A statement, any statement, starts out with a 50% probability of being true" Even the rephrasing "in a vacuum we should believe it with 50% certainty" still seems simply wrong. Where in the world did you see that in Bayesian theory?

For saying that, I label you a Level-0 Rationalist. Unless someone's talking about binary digits of Pi, they should generally remove the concept of "50% probability" from their minds altogether.

A statement, any statement, starts out with a probability that's based on its complexity, NOT with a 50/50 probability. "Alice is a banker" is a simpler statement than "Alice is a feminist banker who plays the piano.". That's why the former must be assigned greater probability than the latter.

Comment author: janos 15 August 2011 04:58:44PM 3 points [-]

"Alice is a banker" is a simpler statement than "Alice is a feminist banker who plays the piano.". That's why the former must be assigned greater probability than the latter.

Complexity weights apply to worlds/models, not propositions. Otherwise you might as well say:

"Alice is a banker" is a simpler statement than "Alice is a feminist, a banker, or a pianist.". That's why the former must be assigned greater probability than the latter.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 15 August 2011 05:08:55PM 0 points [-]

Agreed. Instead of complexity, I should have probably said "specificity".

"Alice is a banker" is a less complicated statement than "Alice is a feminist, a banker, or a pianist", but a more specific one.