You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

rstarkov comments on Bayesianism in the face of unknowns - Less Wrong Discussion

1 Post author: rstarkov 12 March 2011 08:54PM

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

Comments (35)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: rstarkov 24 March 2011 02:11:37PM 1 point [-]

Thanks for this, it really helped.

it doesn't guarantee that we have time, resources, or inclination to actually calculate it

Here's how I understand this point, that finally made things clearer:

Yes, there exists a more accurate answer, and we might even be able to discover it by investing some time. But until we do, the fact that such an answer exists is completely irrelevant. It is orthogonal to the problem.

In other words, doing the calculations would give us more information to base our prediction on, but knowing that we can do the calculation doesn't change it in the slightest.

Thus, we are justified to treat this as "don't know at all", even though it seems that we do know something.

Probability is in the mind

Great read, and I think things have finally fit into the right places in my head. Now I just need to learn to guesstimate what the maximum entropy distribution might look like for a given set of facts :)

Well, that and how to actually churn out confidence intervals and expected values for experiments like this one, so that I know how much to bet given a particular set of knowledge.

Comment author: alexflint 24 March 2011 03:19:35PM 0 points [-]

Cool, glad it was helpful :)

Here is one interesting post about how to encourage our brains to output specific probabilities: http://lesswrong.com/lw/3m6/techniques_for_probability_estimates/