= 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)
No, because you can't say anything about the relationship of P(A) in comparison to P(C|D)
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?