= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shokwave comments on two puzzles on rationality of defeat - 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 (55)
The formulations of "logical omniscience is a problem for Bayesian reasoners" that I have seen are not sufficiently worrying; actually creating a Dutch Book would require the formulating party to have the logical omniscience the Bayesian lacks which is not a situation we encounter very much.
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you elaborate?
It's just that logical omniscience is required to quickly identify the (pre-determined) truth value of incredibly complicated mathematical equations; if you want to exploit my not knowing the thousandth mersenne prime, you have to know the thousandth mersenne prime to do so, and humans generally don't encounter beings that have significantly more logical knowledge.