Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

RichardKennaway comments on Knowing About Biases Can Hurt People - Less Wrong

70 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 04 April 2007 06:01PM

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

Comments (79)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: RichardKennaway 15 September 2012 10:42:43PM 2 points [-]

Is this true in general?

Yes, in this technical sense.

It seems to me that if a Bayesian has limited information handling ability

A true Bayesian has unlimited information handling ability.

Comment author: alex_zag_al 16 September 2012 12:32:19AM 1 point [-]

A true Bayesian has unlimited information handling ability.

I think I see that - because if it didn't, then not all of its probabilities would be properly updated, so its degrees of belief wouldn't have the relations implied by probability theory, so it wouldn't be a true Bayesian. Right?

Comment author: RichardKennaway 16 September 2012 10:00:21AM 2 points [-]

Yes, one generally ignores the cost of making these computations. One might try to take it into account, but then one is ignoring the cost of doing that computation, etc. Historically, the "Bayesian revolution" needed computers before it could happen.

And, I notice, it has only gone as far as the computers allow. "True Bayesians" also have universal priors, that assign non-zero probability density to every logically possible hypothesis. Real Bayesian statisticians never do this; all those I have read deny that it is possible.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 16 September 2012 06:53:57PM 1 point [-]

And, I notice, it has only gone as far as the computers allow. "True Bayesians" also have universal priors, that assign non-zero probability density to every logically possible hypothesis. Real Bayesian statisticians never do this; all those I have read deny that it is possible.

It is impossible, even in principal. The only way to have universal priors over all computable universes is if you have access to a source of hypercomputation, but that would mean the universe isn't computable so the truth still isn't in your prior set.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 16 September 2012 06:56:24PM 0 points [-]

Is that written up as a theorem anywhere?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 18 September 2012 12:50:51AM 0 points [-]

That depends on how one wants to formalize it.