= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
turchin comments on Open thread, Oct. 17 - Oct. 23, 2016 - 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 (66)
Is my understanding of bayesian knowledge correct?
You have field of hypotheses, and you have probability field over this field, based on the field of evidences (and some priors).
For example, there is are field of possible interpretations of QM. We know that EY has the following probability field over it: (1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0, ...), there 1 corresponds to MWI.
I personally have the following probability field over field of QM-interpretations: (0.5, 0.2, 0.01, 0.01), where 0.5 believe corresponds to MWI, and 0.2 to consciousness cause collapse, and 0,01 to any other interpretations.
My question: is it correct way to present believes into theories? How can I do it better?
This is a perfectly valid presentation. A better one would be to ditch the lists and just say "0.99 to MWI" or "probability 0.5 of MWI, 0.2 of consciousness causes collapse, the rest distributed among unknown unknowns."
Even better would be to assign a smaller probability to consciousness causes collapse :P