= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on What's in a name? That which we call a rationalist… - 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 (88)
(a) Nobody can actually be Bayesian. Nothing made of quarks can be Bayesian.
(b) This is such a good existing word that I would be afraid of contaminating it if something goes wrong, and others might not take well to anyone trying to "steal" it.
Do you mean that they can't use Solomonoff's prior? It's easy for a computer to be Bayesian about a very simple universe, no?
A sufficiently small, discrete universe with known physics? Yes. But not in real life. All real-world hypothesis spaces are exponential or larger.
Hmmm... What matters is the structure you can use to represent a hypothesis space for your purposes, not its size in some silly representation. If you can denote 3^^^^3 states as X and get away with it, it doesn't matter that the number of states is 3^^^^3 and not (horror!) 3^^^3.