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

Decius comments on Conservation of Expected Evidence - Less Wrong

68 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 13 August 2007 03:55PM

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

Comments (77)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: Decius 11 October 2012 04:58:37AM 0 points [-]

At what point does the decision "This is true" diverge from the observation "There is very strong evidence for this", other than in cases where the model is accepted as true despite a lack of strong evidence?

I'm not discussing the case where a model goes from unknown to known- how does deciding to believe a model give you more information than knowing what the model is and the reason for the model. To better model an actual agent, one could replace all of the knowledge about why the model is true with the value of the strength of the supporting knowledge.

How does deciding that things always fall down give you more information than observing things fall down?

Comment author: CynicalOptimist 19 August 2016 03:18:21PM *  0 points [-]

I believe the idea was to ask "hypothetically, if I found out that this hypothesis was true, how much new information would that give me?"

You'll have two or more hypotheses, and one of them is the one that would (hypothetically) give you the least amount of new information. The one that would give you the least amount of new information should be considered the "simplest" hypothesis. (assuming a certain definition of "simplest", and a certain definition of "information")