TimS comments on Rationality Quotes March 2012 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Thomas 03 March 2012 08:04AM

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

Comments (525)

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

Comment author: TimS 02 March 2012 07:25:27PM *  4 points [-]

Thanks, that's quite clear. Should I reference abandonment of fundamental objects as the major feature of a paradigm shift?

In fact, in every case of inexpressibility that we know of, it's been because one of the ways of thinking about the world didn't give correct predictions.

Yes, every successful paradigm shift. Proponents of failed paradigm shifts are usually called cranks. :)

My position is that the repeated pattern of false fundamental objects suggest that we should give up on the idea of fundamental objects, and simply try to make more accurate predictions without asserting anything else about the "accuracy" of our models.

Comment author: Bugmaster 02 March 2012 09:32:37PM 1 point [-]

and simply try to make more accurate predictions without asserting anything else about the "accuracy" of our models.

How can you make accurate predictions while at the same time discarding the notion of accuracy ?

Comment author: TimS 02 March 2012 09:45:30PM 0 points [-]

I have no reason to expect that our models correspond to reality in any meaningful way, but I still think that useful predictions are possible.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 02 March 2012 09:51:19PM 2 points [-]

Predictions about the world are only possible to the extent the world controls the predictions, to the extent considerations you use to come up with the predictions correspond to the state of the world. So it's not possible to make useful predictions based on considerations that don't correspond to reality, or conversely if you manage to make useful predictions, there must be something in your considerations that corresponds to the world. See Searching for Bayes-Structure.

Comment author: Bugmaster 02 March 2012 09:48:47PM 1 point [-]

Isn't "makes accurate predictions" synonymous with "corresponds to reality in some way" ? If there was absolutely no correspondence between your model and reality, you wouldn't be able to judge how accurate your predictions were. In order to make such a judgement, you need to compare your predictions to the actual outcome. By doing so, you are establishing a correspondence between your model and reality.