= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanielLC comments on Where Recursive Justification Hits Bottom - 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 (73)
Not sure why you were silently voted down into negatives here, but if I understand your meaning correctly, then you're basically saying this:
P(A)*P(B|A)
vs
P(C)
aren't automatically comparable because C, well, isn't A?
I'd then say "if C and A are in "similar terms"/level of complexity... ie, if the principle of indifference or whatever would lead you to assign equivalent probabilities to P(C) and P(A) (suppose, say, C = ~A and C and both have similar complexity), then you could apply it.
(or did I miss your meaning?)
How do you know that? Why must P(A) be a function of the complexity of A?
Also, this is only sufficient to yield a bound on Occam's razor. How do you know that the universe doesn't favor a given complexity?
Not a sole function of its complexity, but if A and B have the same complexity, and you have no further initial reason to place more belief in one or the other, then would you agree that you should assign P(A) = P(B)?
Complexity is a function of the hypothesis. Other functions can be made. In fact, complexity isn't even a specific function. What language are we using?