Eugine_Nier comments on Causal Reference - Less Wrong

30 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 October 2012 10:12PM

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

Comments (242)

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

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 21 October 2012 10:38:23PM 0 points [-]

Okay, I can see that I need to spell out in more detail one of the ideas here - namely that you're trying to generalize over a repeating type of causal link and that reference is pinned down by such generalization.

So in the end, we're back a frequentism.

Also, what about unique events?

Comment author: Cyan 22 October 2012 02:47:55AM *  3 points [-]

Somewhat tangentially, I'd like to point out that simply bringing up relative frequencies of different types of events in discussion doesn't make one a crypto-frequentist -- the Bayesian approach doesn't bar relative frequencies from consideration. In contrast, frequentism does deprecate the use of mathematical probability as a model or representation of degrees of belief/plausibility.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 October 2012 12:52:47AM 2 points [-]

Er, no, they're called Dynamic Bayes Nets. And there are no known unique events relative to the fundamental laws of physics; those would be termed "miracles". Physics repeats perfectly - there's no question of frequentism because there's no probabilities - and the higher-level complex events are one-time if you try to measure them precisely; Socrates died only once, etc.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 23 October 2012 12:44:37AM 0 points [-]

And there are no known unique events relative to the fundamental laws of physics

What about some of the things going on at the LHC?