= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JulianMorrison comments on Rationality is Systematized Winning - 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 (252)
Since we learn reason from the universe we're in, if we were in a universe you're referring to as "pathological", we (well, sentients, if any) would have learned a method of arriving at conclusions which matched that. Likewise, since the universe produced math, I don't think it has any meaning to talk of whether universes with different fundamental rules are "mathematically conceivable".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_free_lunch_in_search_and_optimization
No search algorithm beats random picking in the totally general case. This implies the totally general case must include an equal balance of pathology and sanity. Intuitively, a problem could be structured so every good decision gives a bad result.
Edit: this post gives a perfect example of a pathological problem: there is only one decision to be made, a Bayesian loses, a random picker gets it right half the time and an anti-Bayesian wins.
However we seem to be living in a sane universe.