Constant2 comments on Probability is Subjectively Objective - Less Wrong

22 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 July 2008 09:16AM

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

Comments (68)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Constant2 15 July 2008 08:07:26PM 0 points [-]

Jaynes' perspective on the historical behaviour of biased coins would make no mention of probability - unless he was talking about the history of the expectations of some observer with partial information about the situation. Do you see anything wrong with that?

I see nothing wrong with that. Similarly, if someone mentions only the atoms in my body, and never mentions me, there is nothing wrong with that. However, I am also there.

What I have pointed out is that seemingly unproblematic statements can indeed be made of the sort that I described. That Jaynes himself makes no such statements says nothing one way or another about this. There are different possible responses, including:

1) It might be shown that certain classes of factual statements about history, including the one I gave, are in fact in some sense relative, may incorporate a tacit perspective and therefore may be in that sense subjective. An example of such a statement might be a statement that an object is "at rest" rather than "in motion". This statement tacitly presupposes a frame of reference, and so is in that sense not fully objective.

2) It might be shown that there was something wrong about the sort of statement that I gave as an example.