= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
fsopho comments on Evidence and counterexample to positive relevance - 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 (37)
Me neither - but I am not thinking that it is a good idea to divorce h from b.
Just a technical point: P(x) = P(x|b)P(b) + P(x|~b)P(~b)
Given a deck of cards shuffled and arranged in a circle, the odds of the northernmost card being the Ace of Spades should be 1/52. h=the northernmost card is the Ace of Spades (AoS)
Turning over a card at random which is neither the AoS nor the northernmost card is evidence for h.
Omega providing the true statement "The AoS is between the KoD and 5oC" is not evidence for or against, unless the card we turned over is either adjacent to the northernmost card or one of the referenced cards.
If we select another card at random, we can update again- either to 2%, 50%, 1, or 0. (2% if none of the referenced cards are shown, 50% if an adjacent card is picked and it is either KoD or 5oC, 1 if the northernmost card is picked and it is the AoS, and 0 if one of the referenced cards turns up where it shouldn't be.)
That seems enough proof that evidence can alter the evidential value of other evidence.