eli_sennesh comments on The path of the rationalist - Less Wrong

20 Post author: So8res 12 April 2015 01:44AM

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

Comments (30)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 19 April 2015 07:16:45PM 0 points [-]

TYL: So8res is using the word "beliefs" in a slightly idiosyncratic way, to refer to things one simply treats as true and as fit subjects for logical rather than probabilistic inference.

Logical inference is probability-preserving. It does not require that you assign infinite certainty to your axioms.

Comment author: gjm 19 April 2015 11:41:14PM 1 point [-]

If your axioms are a1,a2,a3,...,a10 each with probability 0.75, and if they are independent, then a1 & a2 & ... & a10 (which is a valid logical inference from a1, ..., a10) has probability about 0.06. In the absence of independence, the probability could be anywhere from 0 to 0.75.

Perhaps by "probability-preserving" you mean something like: if you start with a bunch of axioms then anything you infer from them has probability no smaller than Pr(all axioms are correct). I agree, logical inference is probability-preserving in that sense, but note that that's fully compatible with (e.g.) it being possible to draw very improbable conclusions from axioms each of which on its own has probability very close to 1.