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.

Douglas_Knight comments on Born rule or universal prior? - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: cousin_it 29 June 2011 11:27PM

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: Douglas_Knight 30 June 2011 04:00:25PM 4 points [-]

"Nature has access to random bits" is a very different claim than "nature outputs the uniform distribution."

Many versions of Solomonoff induction, including, I believe, the original, predict that if so far the even bits of the output are all 0 and the odd bits have full complexity, that description will continue to be true in the future.

Comment author: cousin_it 10 July 2011 09:17:14PM *  0 points [-]

I'm having trouble figuring out a proof for your last claim... But then again, maybe I'm just being stupid because two other people have tried to explain it to me and I didn't understand their attempts either :-(

Comment author: Wei_Dai 10 July 2011 09:56:30PM *  3 points [-]
Comment author: cousin_it 11 July 2011 08:25:46AM *  0 points [-]

Thanks a lot! I'm now convinced that the claim is true, but have no idea why :-) Will try to work through the proof.

Comment author: timtyler 01 July 2011 06:43:02PM 0 points [-]

Many versions of Solomonoff induction, including, I believe, the original, predict that if so far the even bits of the output are all 0 and the odd bits have full complexity, that description will continue to be true in the future.

Haven't seen too any of those. Have they even been seriously proposed? This certainly isn't what people usually mean by "Solomonoff induction".