smoofra comments on No Universal Probability Space - Less Wrong

0 Post author: gworley 06 May 2009 02:58AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (44)
Tags: naive measure reasoning probability rationality

Comments (44)

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

Comment author: Cyan 06 May 2009 05:13:38PM *  1 point [-]

I think smoofra is talking about the same sorts of things Jaynes is when he writes:

The danger here is particularly great because mathematicians generally regard these limit theorems as the most important and sophisticated fruits of probability theory, and have a tendency to use language which implies that they are proving properties of the real world. Our point is that these theorems are valid properties of the abstract mathematical model that was defined and analyzed [emphasis in original]. The issue is: to what extent does that model resemble the real world? It is probably safe to say that no limit theorem is directly applicable in the real world, simply because no mathematical model captures every circumstance that is relevant in the real world.

- PT:LOS, pp 65-66.

Comment author: smoofra 06 May 2009 05:29:54PM *  2 points [-]

ADBOC

Jaynes aggressively scorns abstract mathematics. I love abstract mathematics. We both agree that just because you have a model or a theorem, it doesn't necessarily apply to the real world.

edit: (ADBOC directed to jaynes, not to cyan)

Comment author: Cyan 06 May 2009 08:00:24PM *  2 points [-]

I come to quote Jaynes, not to praise him; the scorn that men write lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones -- let it not be thus with Jaynes.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit