= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
potato comments on Bayes Slays Goodman's Grue - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (120)
It is not, my assumption is of a definite frequency with which some result comes, out of trials.
When you realize that the reason you don't determine the meaning of green using grue and bleen because there is a physical test which has higher authority in defining greenhood, the threat disolves.
By “frequency” I suppose you mean the fraction of balls dropped on the right out of all ball drops, past and future? And with emeralds... I guess you mean the fraction of green emeralds out of all emeralds that hbe been or will be observed?
I suppose the physical test in the ball problem is the ball landing on one side or the other of the line. In the emerald problem, the physical test is, what is it?