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

Paul_Crowley comments on Belief in the Implied Invisible - Less Wrong

30 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 08 April 2008 07:40AM

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

Comments (32)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Paul_Crowley 08 April 2008 10:15:57AM 0 points [-]

This is what I thought at first, but on reflection, it's not quite right.

Could you explain a little more the distinction between the position preceding this remark and that following it? They seem like different formulations of the same thing to me.

Comment author: Manfred 28 March 2012 04:51:37AM *  2 points [-]

I'll give it a shot. Solomonoff induction doesn't even mention photons, so the statement about the photon doesn't follow directly from it. Solomonoff induction just tells you about the general laws, which then you can use to talk about photons. So "belief in the implied invisible" means you're going through this two-step process, rather than directly computing probabilities about photons.