= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Risk Contracts: A Crackpot Idea to Save the World - 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 (35)
The known physics don't allow you to say things about things unknown to model of known physics. Unknown variables that you can describe with the model of physics are known unknowns.
I agree to that. But we can't get any further if we can't agree on an intermediate point.
Would you argue about a system where we do not know the specifics of of some behavior of the system (to avoid the word 'unknown') but where we can know something about the (e.g. the probability mass) outside of the known specific behavior but still inside some general model of the system.
The known specific behavior is "known knowns" and not "known unknowns". There are certainly known unknowns over which you can make valuable statements.
Accepting the limits of what one can know is important. That does often mean that one can't go further.
Yes, the known specific behavior is known known. But I'm talking about the general behavior. Where we do not know specifics of but which is still within the general model? How do you call these?
"known unknowns" describes a model where you have unknown variables but you know which variables you don't know.
OK with that terminology we can agree.