= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kawoomba comments on Probability is in the Mind - 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 (186)
Thank you! This helps me hone in on a point that I am sorely confused on, which BrienneStrohl just illustrated nicely:
You're stating that B9's prior that "the ball is blue" is 'very low', as opposed to {Null / NaN}. And that likewise, my prior that "zorgumphs are wogle" is 'very low', as opposed to {Null / NaN}.
Does this mean that my belief system actually contains an uncountable infinitude of priors, one for each possible framing of each possible cluster of facts?
Or, to put my first question more succinctly, what priors should I assign potential facts that my current gestalt assigns no semantic meaning to whatsoever?
You can reserve some slice of your probability space for "here be dragons", the (1 - P("my current gestalt is correct"). Your countably many priors may fight over that real estate.
Also, if you demand your models to be computable (a good assumption, because if they aren't we're eff'ed anyways), there'll never be an uncountable infinitude of priors.