= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
endoself comments on Why We Can't Take Expected Value Estimates Literally (Even When They're Unbiased) - 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 (249)
Approximately normal distributions arise from the assumption of the involvement of many independent random variables with the largest ones being of roughly comparable size. It's intuitively plausible that a Solomonoff type prior would (at least approximately) yield such an assumption.
Intuitively plausible, but wrong; Solomonoff priors have long, very slowly decreasing tails.
Care to elaborate or give a reference?
See http://lesswrong.com/lw/6fd/observed_pascals_mugging/4fky and the replies.
Okay, I didn't mean a literal Solomonoff prior; I meant "what your posterior would be after starting with a Solomonoff prior, observing the natural/human world at some length and Bayesian updating accordingly." The prior alone contains essentially no information!
Observations would merely shrink the tails by a multiplicative constant, they would not change the shape.